Coalition against International Terrorism

Tony Blair: Mr. Speaker, thank you for agreeing to the third recall of Parliament since 11 September.
	At 5.30 pm British time yesterday, a series of air and cruise missile attacks began on the terrorist camps of Osama bin Laden and the military installations of the Taliban regime. These were carried out by American and British armed forces with the support of other allies. There were 30 targets. Twenty-three were outside the main cities, three were in Kabul and four were in the vicinity of other large settlements. In all cases, the utmost care was taken to avoid civilian casualties. British forces were engaged in this action through the use of submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles fired against terrorist training facilities.
	It is too early to report back fully on the effect of last night's action. However, we can say that initial indications are that the coalition operations were successful in achieving their objective of destroying and degrading elements of the al-Qaeda terrorist facilities and the Taliban military apparatus that protects them. These operations will continue, and I can tell the House that a second wave of attacks is now under way. In time, they will be supported by other actions, again carefully targeted on the military network of the enemy.
	We took almost four weeks after 11 September to act. I pay tribute to President Bush's statesmanship in having the patience to wait. That was for three reasons. First, we had to establish who was responsible. Once it was clear that the al-Qaeda network planned and perpetrated the attacks, we then wanted to give the Taliban regime time to decide their own position: would they shield bin Laden or yield him up? It was only fair to give them an ultimatum and time to respond. But it is now clear that they have chosen to side with terrorism.
	But thirdly, we wanted time to make sure that the targets for any action minimised the possibility of civilian casualties. Our argument is not with the Afghan people. They are victims of the Taliban regime. They live in poverty, repressed viciously, women denied even the most basic human rights, and subject to a crude form of theocratic dictatorship that is as cruel as it is arbitrary.
	We are doing all we can to limit the effect of our action on ordinary Afghans. I repeat: we will not walk away from them once the conflict ends, as has happened in the past. We will stand by them and help them to a better, more stable future under a broad-based Government involving all the different ethnic groupings. That is our commitment to the people of Afghanistan.
	The strength of the coalition remains. In addition to Britain, France, Germany, Australia and Canada have all pledged military support. We should also remember the contribution that Germany is already making, under Chancellor Schroder, by taking over the leadership of the NATO mission in Macedonia, and thus freeing up other allied resources for use in Afghanistan. I spoke to Prime Minister Aznar of Spain last night. He pledged his full commitment and indicated his readiness to provide military support. We greatly value and welcome the Spanish support, as we do that of Italy. And of course NATO is giving its full support. Today the North Atlantic Council agreed the redeployment of five AWACS aircraft to free up United States assets so that they can participate in this operation. We anticipate that NATO will shortly agree the redeployment of standing naval forces on the same basis.
	The European Union is fully supportive. Russia has issued a strong statement calling for decisive action against the evil of terrorism. China has encouraged efforts to combat terrorism, calling for military strikes to be targeted at specific objectives. The Japanese Prime Minister and Government have given their full support.
	President Musharraf of Pakistan has described the military strikes as
	"an action against terrorists, terrorism and their sanctuaries and supporters".
	Pakistan is providing help in terms of intelligence, logistic support and airspace.
	On Saturday, I met Prime Minister Vajpayee of India, who assured me of the Indian Government's robust support for efforts to combat international terrorism.
	In the Arab world there has been widespread condemnation of the 11 September atrocities and acceptance of the need to take action against the al-Qaeda network.
	Of course, al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime will be eager to spread false propaganda. Already, their lie machine is putting out false claims about the US planes being shot down. There will be much more of that kind of thing. And of course they lie about our motivation. We know their aim. It is to foment conflict between Islam and the west; it is to present themselves as champions of the Muslim world against the United States of America. It is to say that we are anti-Islam. That is a lie. Let us expose it once and for all. We are in conflict with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime because the terrorists killed thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims and women and children; and because the Taliban regime, in return for financial and other support, give them succour.
	Forgive me for repeating this, but my visit to Pakistan convinced me that these sentiments cannot be repeated too often. To kill as those terrorists did is utterly foreign to all the teachings of the Koran, and to justify it by saying that such murder of the innocent is doing the will of God is to defame the good name of Islam. That is why Muslims the world over have been appalled by this act. That was made clear to me once more at my meeting earlier today with leaders of all the religious faiths, including Muslims, in Britain.
	As for those who doubted bin Laden's wickedness or his murderous intent, I ask them to listen to his television broadcast yesterday. He said:
	"God Almighty hit the US at its most vulnerable spot. He destroyed its greatest buildings and filled the country with terror. Praise be to God."
	Sitting next to him was Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who themselves were involved in al-Qaeda's attacks, in 1998, on the US embassies in east Africa.
	I also remind people of this. In 1999, when hundreds of thousands of Muslims were subject to ethnic cleansing by the hated Milosevic regime in Kosovo, we took military action in Serbia against Milosevic. We were not acting then against Milosevic because Serbia is an Orthodox Christian country, or in favour of the Kosovars because so many of them are Muslims. We acted against Milosevic because what he was doing—the humanitarian catastrophe that he was inflicting on them—was unjust. We helped the Kosovars because they were victims of his injustice.
	It is justice too that makes our coalition as important on the humanitarian side as on the military side. We have established an effective coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in the region, which of course existed before 11 September. Our priority has been to re-establish food supply routes into Afghanistan. Some 5,000 tonnes of food went in during the last fortnight, thanks to the efforts of the United Nations and other international agencies. At the UN meeting in Geneva over the weekend, donors pledged $600 million, including the United Kingdom's own commitment of $55 million. We will do all that we can to help refugees from the Taliban regime. All we ask them to do is not to stop that help getting through to those refugees.
	We must safeguard our country too. Our first responsibility is the safety of the public. Since 11 September, every one of our arrangements has been under scrutiny. We have extensive contingency planning in place in Britain. We are doing all that we reasonably can to anticipate the nature of, and thwart, any potential retaliation. As yet there is no specific credible threat that we know of against Britain. However, we would be foolish to be anything other than highly vigilant, although as the experience of the United States shows, that is not an easy task. Contacts between the United Kingdom, United States and other Governments and agencies are good, and expertise and planning are being shared.
	I am aware too of the anguish of the families of the aid workers held in Afghanistan, and of the family of the journalist Yvonne Ridley. I can report to the House that Yvonne Ridley has been handed over to Pakistani officials with whom we have been liaising closely since her detention. She has been met by consular staff from the high commission, and she will be taken to Islamabad this evening and accommodated with the high commission. I pay tribute to the tireless work of the British high commission in Islamabad, the Foreign Office and the Pakistani Government in securing her release.
	We are in this for the long haul. Even when al-Qaeda is dealt with, the job will not be over. The network of international terrorism is not confined to it. It is essential therefore that we reflect on why it is so necessary that we stand with the US and other allies in this fight. The attack was an attack not on the west or the United States alone. It was an attack on civilised values everywhere. It was an attempt to change by terror what the terrorists knew they could not do by reasoned argument. It was an attempt to substitute terrorist atrocity for deliberative policy; to see the world run by the chaos consequent on terrorist outrage, rather than by disciplined and calm debate.
	We in Britain have the most direct interest in defeating such terror. It strikes at the heart of what we believe in. We know that, if not stopped, the terrorists will do it again, possibly this time in Britain. We know that it was an attack also on economic confidence, trying to destroy the strength of our economies, and that eradicating this threat is crucial to global economic confidence.
	We know that the Taliban regime are largely funded by the drugs trade and that 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets originates in Afghanistan. We know that the refugee crisis—4.5 million on the move even before 11 September—directly impacts us here.
	So this military action we are undertaking is not for a just cause alone, though this cause is just. It is to protect our country, our people, our economy, our way of life. It is not a struggle remote from our everyday British concerns; it touches them intimately.
	We did not choose this conflict. We do not go lightly to fight. We are all of us—the nations involved in this action—peaceful peoples who prefer to live in peace, but a desire to live in peace should never be interpreted as weakness by those who attack us. If attacked, we will respond. We will defend ourselves and our very reluctance to use force means that, when we do, we do so with complete determination that we shall prevail.
	That is why we were there last night, in action, and why we will be there again, with our allies. It is why we will continue to act with steadfast resolve to see this struggle through to the end and to the victory that would mark the victory not of revenge but of justice over the evil of terrorism.

Iain Duncan Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I join the Prime Minister in thanking you for agreeing to recall Parliament and may I say to the Prime Minister how grateful we are for his coming to the House to make his statement today?
	I fully agree with the Prime Minister on the importance of recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity. It is vital on such momentous occasions that the House of Commons is kept informed so that it can debate developments as it will today.
	Yet again, as the Prime Minister announced today, it is clear how important NATO is to our overall security, and I hope that he will outline later whether there are further assets that NATO may have to deploy to the theatre. But our first thoughts are with our armed forces. They have been entrusted with an enormous task. Our hopes and prayers are with them in all that they do. We in this House, who so often take for granted their skill and their bravery, which guarantee our peace and security, must take this opportunity to thank them for their dedication.
	We know that, in playing their part, our armed forces will carry out their duties with the utmost bravery, determination and professionalism, yet we must not forget the families of our service men and women. Theirs is perhaps the hardest task—waiting without knowing, hoping that any news is good news. The prayers of the House should be, and I hope are, with them all. They are not alone in their anxieties, as the Prime Minister pointed out. We here must also recognise that there are legitimate concerns among the British people about the consequences for Britain of this action.
	The Prime Minister is right to consider new ways of protecting British citizens and I hope that, over the next few days, he will be able to tell us more about some of those measures. I also say to the people of this country that the consequences of inaction are far, far greater. This is not a conflict of our own making, but it is a conflict that we must win.
	During this time, we should continue to go about our normal daily lives. To do anything else would be to reward terrorists with a victory that they must never have. That is why my party is continuing with its conference in Blackpool. Democracy must go on.
	The Prime Minister reiterated that this is not a war against Islam. He is right. No teaching of the Koran has ever taught that kind of foul action. Like the Prime Minister, I was angered to hear bin Laden seek to excuse those horrific acts of terrorism by reference to the conflict in the middle east. Before anyone is taken in by such propaganda it is worth pointing out that bin Laden was planning his strike against New York and Washington two years ago. That was at a time when hopes were very high for the peace process in the middle east. He planned to tear down that process, not to uphold it.
	Bin Laden claims to speak for Islam, but he does not. His is a cynical and suicidal cult, dedicated to the destruction of civilisations and lives, irrespective of their faith. That is why Muslim leaders whom I have met have been unequivocal in their condemnation. That is why countries such as Pakistan have united with us despite the severe difficulties that they face.
	I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Government of Pakistan. Over the years our ties between our peoples have been strong. We should all understand the genuine predicament of those families with relations in Afghanistan and Pakistan divided by a common border. I reiterate that our quarrel is not with them. This is not a war against the Afghan people, who have suffered enough under a monstrous regime that terrorises its own people, as the Prime Minister rightly said.
	All of us in the House support the efforts outlined by the Prime Minister to bring humanitarian aid to the region. We must do everything in our power to ensure that once the conflict is over, the people of Afghanistan can return to a homeland that is able to sustain them. Will the Prime Minister now confirm that air drops, while welcome, can provide only a very small amount of aid? Will he confirm that he will be looking at logistical means to get aid to the people of Afghanistan? Will he outline some of the further difficulties in doing so?
	I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the reports that Yvonne Ridley is free. Our best hopes go with the aid workers, whose position and whereabouts is unknown.
	Last night, following weeks of careful preparation and planning, the alliance struck back. This was no knee-jerk reaction, but has been, as the Prime Minister said, a measured response. He was right to pay tribute to President Bush. On 11 September, the appalling atrocities of bin Laden and al-Qaeda horrified the civilised world. These acts were a wake-up call to us all. No longer can we ignore the terrorists and those who nurture them, harbour them and sustain them. The Taliban regime have become an accessory to international mass murder. Their actions have dictated our actions.
	This will be, as President Bush said, a war like no other. It will not be resolved in a matter of days. It could take many months, even years. We are, as the Prime Minister rightly said, in for the long haul. No one should doubt the determination of the British people to see this through to a successful conclusion. Our future security and well-being require no less.

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support, which is greatly appreciated.
	In respect of NATO and further NATO assets, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, but obviously that point will be kept under review. As for our armed forces, as I said last night, it is an incalculable strength for any Prime Minister and any country in this situation to have armed forces that are generally admired throughout the world for their courage, professionalism and extraordinary ability to get on with the job and get it done. We can be truly proud of them. Of course, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this moment.
	We keep very closely under review all the different ways of protecting our citizens against any potential attack, but it is of course extremely difficult to guess where the terrorists may try to strike. We are working urgently on that, not only within this country but in discussions with other Governments.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right about the middle east peace process. It cannot be said too often that these extremists and fanatics are opposed to the peace process because they are opposed to the very existence of the state of Israel. They therefore do not want the peace process to succeed; they want it to fail. That is one reason why it is so important that we get the peace process back on track and moving forward again. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a measure of the terrorists' extremism that they were planning the attack long before the peace process entered its current difficult stage.
	In relation to Afghanistan, I can tell the House that the money is available, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will say more about that in the debate. The biggest difficulty will concern logistics and organisation. We will probably manage in areas around Afghanistan, but the operation will be difficult inside that country unless there is some minimum co-operation from the Taliban regime.
	Finally, this is going to be a long haul. It will be difficult, but one of the things that was very clear from what I thought was a pretty chilling broadcast by Osama bin Laden yesterday was the necessity of acting. This is not a man or a network who will hesitate to act again. They will act again and they will do worse if they can. For those who doubted that we faced a necessity to act, reading a transcript of that interview, or watching it, is a pretty good antidote.

Charles Kennedy: In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement on this sombre parliamentary occasion, may I fully associate Liberal Democrat Members with the expressions of support and concern for our armed forces that have been so properly expressed at this most difficult and dangerous of times? I also welcome the good news, just recently announced and confirmed, of the safe return of Yvonne Ridley.
	The military strikes of the past 24 hours are sad. Indeed, we all consider them tragic, but they are none the less inevitable. If anyone doubted, even last week, the veracity of the case against bin Laden, the chilling nature of the words that he used in last night's broadcast said it all, and mean that one does not have to see evidence. Bin Laden said:
	"There is America, full of fear, from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that."
	That is what we are up against. Very properly, members of all political parties have made it clear—but the point cannot be made often enough—that we are up against evil, not Islam, either at home or abroad.
	There is also no doubt about the sheer complicity of the Taliban regime. The regime harbours bin Laden, in defiance of world opinion, and he fosters terrorism in the face of global decency. That is why the actions taken so far are both just and proportionate.
	I wish to make two brief inquiries of the Prime Minister, on matters that I have raised previously. The first inquiry has to do with the military aims and the political objectives. Is the long-term aim to help establish a more stable, sane and representative administration from within Afghanistan itself, or is it to try and secure, for example, a United Nations protectorate after the military phase is over? Which is the preferred option at this point? On the wider political objective, can further political effort be devoted to implementing United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which deals with the international suppression of terrorism?
	My second inquiry follows on from the first. As the Prime Minister said, aid is, thankfully, reaching Afghanistan. That is a good thing, but if some degree of stability and sanity is not achieved as a consequence of our action in the area, that aid cannot adequately reach the people who need it. Can more be done to help ensure that food reaches those who are hungry, not least those thousands of people who are amassing on Afghanistan's borders with neighbouring states? The problem has been highlighted by the leading domestic and international aid agencies.
	No one in this country has any quarrel whatsoever with the people of Afghanistan, who now find themselves at the mercy of world events. They have a regime whom they did not elect, and they are at the mercy of events because of an individual whom they did not invite.
	We are correct to pursue military action, but unlike the terrorists, we will continue to display mercy.

Tony Blair: Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the action that is being undertaken. I shall deal directly with his two questions.
	Our military aims are to shut down the al-Qaeda network and all the terrorist camps that operate out of Afghanistan, and, in so far as the Taliban regime are an obstacle to that, to disable or remove them. People often ask whether getting rid of the Taliban regime is a specific objective. As time goes on, it is increasingly difficult to understand how the terrorists and the Taliban can be distinguished. My visit to Pakistan brought home to me the interconnection between them; they are linked at every level. However, our aim is to shut down the terrorist network. If the Taliban had acted in accordance with the ultimatum, yielded up bin Laden and started to shut down the camps, action could have been avoided.
	Should the regime fall, it is important, and certainly a political aim, to establish a more representative Government who are based on all ethnic groupings and have broad support in the country. That is not necessarily inconsistent with a role for the United Nations. The two may go together, but the matter is at an early stage of consideration. It was impressed strongly upon me on my travels that it is important for the impetus to come from the Afghan people rather than being imposed by outside Governments, however well intentioned. We can play a facilitating role, but the impetus must come from the Afghanis.
	On food reaching those who are hungry, we have shown in the past couple of weeks that it is possible to get food convoys through to people in Afghanistan. We must now ensure that, notwithstanding the action and the attitude of the Taliban, we contrive the right way of doing that. I believe that the problem will be largely organisational, but the fact that we now have a UN representative of proven capability who will take charge in the region at this early stage gives us the best chance of realising our humanitarian as well as our military aims.

Ann Clwyd: From the beginning, the Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of humanitarian aid. As he knows, up to 7 million people were in danger of suffering a famine even before 11 September. It is therefore crucial that the food aid continues to flow. Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that borders are kept open? If people flee in panic, as they undoubtedly will, it is crucial that they are able to cross the borders to safety.
	I ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to the women of Afghanistan, who have been humiliated and degraded by the Taliban regime. Many of them are already war widows; they will need special help in the current circumstances and after the war is over.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. The question of keeping borders open is strongly connected to that of whether we can offer help of sufficient credibility to the surrounding countries so that they feel able to keep the borders open. That is one of the reasons for our putting the money together for the humanitarian effort so quickly, and for the UN's appointment of a special representative to co-ordinate the effort. We are keeping the borders open with Pakistan, but continuing to do that depends crucially on our providing the necessary support.
	My hon. Friend's comments about the women of Afghanistan are absolutely right. The oppression visited upon them is almost extraordinary. I know that she has read of and talked to victims of the oppression; there is no doubt that relief from the Taliban regime will be most welcome to the people of Afghanistan, especially the women.

Nicholas Soames: In view of the words this morning of President Musharraf about the Northern Alliance, will the Prime Minister clarify the policy of the allies towards that organisation? What exactly will he do to help them or, indeed, to arm them?

Tony Blair: The position of the allies in this respect is clear. It is important that whatever successor regime there is to the Taliban is as broad based as possible. The Northern Alliance has certain of the ethnic groupings necessary for such a broad base, but there is also a genuine desire to ensure that it is not simply limited to those organisations that are part of the Northern Alliance. Of course it is important, because they are assisting us by the actions that they are taking against the Taliban regime, to recognise their contribution, but it was impressed strongly upon me in Pakistan—and by President Musharraf personally—that if a successor regime comes out of this conflict, it must be sufficiently broadly based and must take into account the legitimate interests of Pakistan.

John McFall: As the Prime Minister said, this is a grave moment for the world. He has our support in these actions. Will he accept that just as important as the prosecution of war is the subsequent campaign for justice and peace? There can be no lasting peace without justice. To that extent, will he reflect on the humanitarian aspects and ensure, as the aid agencies have requested, clear corridors for refugees and food? He knows that in the past two decades Pakistan has had to accommodate more than 3 million refugees while having crippling debt, with this year one third of its exports consumed by debt. Will he do something for the refugees and particularly do something about Pakistan's debt?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. Since the tragedy of 11 September the issue of humanitarian help has been right up there alongside the issue of military action. That has been the position not just of Britain but of the United States. President Bush has made it clear that he is absolutely committed to the humanitarian coalition. There is a feeling in Pakistan—the intensity of this feeling is clear only when one talks to the people concerned—that at the end of the 1980s when the Russians left Afghanistan, the west did not stand by Pakistan or help it with the problems that it had to deal with. It is important now to send the message that we will not see the successful achievement of our military aims as an end. That should be the beginning of a political process that heals some of the wounds in the region and offers a Government of stability, not just for the Afghan people but for their neighbours.

Keith Simpson: Both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have emphasised that this is going to be a long haul. Given the Prime Minister's praise for the British armed forces, is he satisfied that they have the necessary resources in place for such a long haul? If not, will he give them those extra resources to achieve the political objective that we all desire?

Tony Blair: We have already made it clear—the Chancellor of the Exchequer did so the other day—that the armed forces should have the resources necessary to do the job. It would not be fair or right to ask them to do it without being properly resourced, and they will be.

Harry Barnes: Can we be sure that the bombing will not be over the top, as it was in Iraq and Serbia? That is particularly important if we are seeking a result in Afghanistan that involves the Afghan people and a fair and balanced constitution.
	On humanitarian matters, are we sure that we have the economic backing required? If we are planning to tackle terrorism throughout the world and not just in Afghanistan, we have to tackle global poverty. We need the resources to do that. Will the Government re-examine their position on the Tobin tax on currency speculation? That would be a ready source of funding to tackle this matter in the long run.

Tony Blair: First, in relation to any military action, I think that we have shown, both by the time we have taken and by the targets we have chosen, that we are well aware of the need to do everything that we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties, and that has been clear from the very outset. Of course, conflict is conflict, and it is never easy to do it or to ensure that any potential civilian casualties are minimised, but we are doing all we possibly can to do that.
	In relation to the economic backing for humanitarian aid, I think that the $600 million—the initial programme for six months that the United Nations considers necessary—has been effectively agreed in principle by the main countries, including a very generous contribution from the United States of America; so that money is there. I personally believe that, on the humanitarian side, the issue will not be money; it will be organisation and logistics.
	In relation to what we can do about global poverty, I am proud of the work that has been done by the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the Government to try to deal with issues such as debt and increasing aid and development money, and we have done that. I regret to say that I am not entirely with my hon. Friend on the Tobin tax idea.

Teddy Taylor: As the Prime Minister has kindly given us all a paper that shows in detail the appalling involvement of Mr. bin Laden not only in the activities of the 11 September, but on many similar occasions which obviously justify trial and justice, is it the case that, in the event of Mr. bin Laden falling into the hands of British troops, it would not legally be possible for us to hand him over to the United States for trial because it has the death penalty? Does not the Prime Minister genuinely feel that this is an issue on which the law the should be changed, because it would be unthinkable for bin Laden to be tried in any country other than the USA, where the terrible killings took place?

Tony Blair: There are issues connected with extradition and the death penalty, which the hon. Gentleman knows that we are examining as part of the laws in relation to this, but in respect of bin Laden himself, I suspect that that is not a very serious consideration in this particular case.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of people who voted in my constituency and elsewhere agree with the Leader of the Opposition's sentiments that the way in which matters have been conducted so far by our own Government, the United States Administration and our other allies has been indeed measured, and appropriately so? Does he further agree that as events unfold, whatever regime or whatever supervisory arrangements emerge in Afghanistan, it will have to be impressed on those involved that the pivotal role that Afghanistan has played for some decades now in the production and distribution of heroin right across the world will simply be unacceptable?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. It is very important that we ensure that Afghanistan ceases to be the source of a significant amount of the heroin in the world and, not least, the 90 per cent. of heroin in this country that originates in Afghanistan. What is interesting is that if we look, for example, at Pakistan, there was a programme some years ago to change out of the production of heroin, which was successful, so it is not impossible for countries to engage in a process that frees them from dependence on this, and there are other, better and more productive uses to which the land can be put, but I agree with him entirely: that should be a principal objective of the supervisory arrangements afterwards.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister referred to the United Nations twice in his statement, both times in connection with humanitarian aid, which is, of course, most welcome, but may I respectfully remind him that, by invoking the self-defence provisions under article 51, there is a prerequisite that the matter should be referred immediately to the Security Council? I understand that the United States has already done so. May I ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have done so, and if so, is such action limited to action in one country alone?

Tony Blair: We believe that such action is entirely justified under article 51 in self-defence. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the UN Security Council has agreed that it is right that action should be taken, and Britain, the United States of America and the other allies are acting in accordance with the UN resolution and international law.

Tam Dalyell: On that very point, is it the Law Officers' advice that the action is in line with the provisions of the United Nations charter?

Tony Blair: Yes.

Derek Conway: Does the Prime Minister accept that his personal conduct and praise for the patience of the American people will find widespread support both inside and outside the House? As, sadly, bin Laden is neither the first nor likely to be the last of his type, will the Prime Minister assure the House that we have learned the lessons of Saddam Hussein that evil does not understand the meaning of the word "probation" and that the war against terrorism does not stop at the caves of Afghanistan but has to be finished once and for all?

Tony Blair: As I said in my statement, it is important that we realise that international terrorism and terrorism operating in this way are not confined to the al-Qaeda network. As I said at the outset, there are really two phases. The first is dealing with the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime who shield it in Afghanistan, and then we have to consider the other measures that are necessary to deal with terrorism throughout the world.

Lynne Jones: In meeting the objectives that the Prime Minister has laid down, the decision is not between action and inaction but between action that will be effective and that which could do more harm. Members last week called for the action to be measured, proportionate, targeted and in accordance with international law. Will the Prime Minister report back regularly to the House on compliance with those requirements?

Tony Blair: Yes, of course we will. We want that action to be effective and it has, of course, got to be measured as well. We believe that the way that we have acted is measured and we believe that it will be effective. Of course I will report back to the House regularly.

Angela Watkinson: I was one of the members of the British-American parliamentary group who were in Washington on 11 September. That visit has been well reported by other members of the group, but one aspect has not been mentioned. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack, people gathered, much as they did in this country, wherever a television screen could be found, to watch events unfolding and it was very evident to me that it did not matter what the origin of those American people was. They were many and varied and it did not matter whether they were Irish, Hispanic, Afro-American or Italian. They all considered themselves to be American first, and that is a very important lesson for us to learn.
	I have been very heartened by the letters that I have received from Asian and Muslim organisations in my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must ask a question. However, I think that the Prime Minister will be able to answer her point.

Tony Blair: I think that the sentiments that the hon. Lady expresses are the right sentiments, not just for America but for Britain also.

Linda Gilroy: I thank the Prime Minister for the reason and resolve with which he is approaching these matters. Can he say anything more of the assessment that he has made of the number of terrorists who have been trained in the al-Qaeda network and about their capacity for atrocities comparable to the terrible events of 11 September?

Tony Blair: What we know is that thousands have passed through the al-Qaeda network of terrorist training camps. The camps controlled by al-Qaeda are not the only terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Essentially, all over Afghanistan for the past decade people have been trained in acts of terrorism to export to various parts of the world. That is why our demand of the Taliban right from the very outset was that they not merely yielded up bin Laden and his associates and those people responsible for al-Qaeda, but that they closed down all those camps in Afghanistan and did so verifiably. I think it is important that we keep that in the forefront of our minds because some of these people have gone to different parts of the world committing acts of terrorism. They have been trained there, and the Taliban regime have used the self-same people as well in doing what they are doing. That is part of the interconnection between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the answer is that literally thousands of people have passed through the camps, which is why it is important that we shut them down.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of all those RAF men and women from Norfolk bases who have been deployed to the region? Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), will he look specifically at the concerns of the RAF regarding funding for equipment and training in peace time?

Tony Blair: Of course I pay tribute to the RAF for the work that it does, which is magnificent. We shall certainly look at any issues raised in respect of funding, but I am assured by both the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor that the necessary resources are available.

Paul Marsden: In my right hon. Friend's excellent speech last week at the Labour party conference he referred to the inalienable US citizens' rights enshrined in the US constitution. When will British citizens be given a written constitution so that Parliament, not a Prime Minister, authorises a declaration of war?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Tony Blair: It may be better if I just thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the conference speech. His question is a topic for another day. However, we do have inalienable rights in this country, through both our legislation and our ordinary common law, and I personally greatly welcome them.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Prime Minister, whose leadership has been exemplary so far, agree that it is absolutely crucial that the people of Muslim countries understand the aims and policies of the coalition? Will he see what can be done to encourage both the BBC World Service and the British Council to use all their resources to that end, and will he ensure that they are adequately resourced for that purpose?

Tony Blair: We are increasing support to them, but the hon. Gentleman's point is very important indeed. It is important that we use every possible outlet—the BBC World Service is a very important outlet—to get across this message because huge disinformation goes on in certain parts of the Arab and Muslim world. People like bin Laden and apologists for terrorism do precisely that. I have noticed in the past few weeks, which is why I repeated those sentiments again today—we have repeated them time and again every time we have had this debate—when I was out in the region, people talking about western leaders all saying that this was about a fight for western values versus Islam, whereas that is not the case. We cannot repeat that often enough. All Members of Parliament have the ability to give interviews to make that point. It is extremely important. This is not unusual in modern conflicts—certainly not of this type—but correctness of information is a vital part of achieving the aims that we set ourselves.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Prime Minister consider using our influence to move the Security Council to set up now an international criminal court comparable to that in The Hague and in Arusha, charged with drawing the indictment and assembling the evidence, and ultimately trying Osama bin Laden and his accomplices? In so doing, a clear message would be sent to the international community that we both desire and expect a judicial end to this conflict.

Tony Blair: We have obviously played a substantial part in the movement towards an international criminal court. Of course it is important that we act in accordance with the rule of law throughout, but we are doing that. The difficulty is not so much what type of justice bin Laden could face but bringing him to justice, particularly as he is shielded by the Taliban regime.

Edward Garnier: In his answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) a moment ago, the Prime Minister used the expression "supervisory arrangements" in relation to what I shall loosely describe as post-war Afghanistan. I assume that he used those words deliberately. Will he explain what he meant by them?

Tony Blair: In fact, I was answering a point made by my hon. Friend, who used the term. What I mean by that is the arrangements for the post-Taliban successor regime.

Stephen McCabe: The Prime Minister has rightly been applauded for trying to build a humanitarian as well as a diplomatic and military coalition. Will any effort be made to screen those arriving at the camps and centres to make sure that they are all genuine refugees and that that does not become an escape route for some of bin Laden's people? Secondly, what will be done to avoid replicating the appalling conditions in the camps of the early 1990s, which did so much to give rise to the emergence of the Taliban?

Tony Blair: Those are both good points. I know that the UN is considering actively how we can make sure that the people coming into the camps are genuine refugees. The UN is familiar with that problem from Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and elsewhere and will be putting in place the mechanisms to deal with it. In relation to my hon. Friend's point about ensuring that the camps are properly run, the very best thing that we can do is to make sure that the money and the organisational capability are there, but as I said a moment or two ago, we need to be most concerned with organisation. The importance of that organisation is not merely to treat the people well, but to make sure that they can return in safety to their own homeland, Afghanistan.

Roy Beggs: May I first apologise for the absence of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party who has commitments at the Northern Ireland Assembly this evening? I also thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for the commitment that he has shown and for his continuing methodical approach in partnership with President Bush and others as they seek to deal with Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda network and its evil allies in the middle east and throughout the world. Bearing in mind that there is a sense of apprehension and fear that there may be retaliatory action, does the Prime Minister agree that people who feel unease at this time should take an example from the people of Northern Ireland who for 30 years stood up against terrorism? Finally, does he agree that although life may be difficult for our nation in the days and months ahead, we must stand together defiantly against terrorism if this evil is to be removed internationally?

Tony Blair: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. On his point about retaliation, of course it is correct that the Taliban may well attempt that, but we should be under no illusion: if we were not taking action they would consider us a target in any event. No act provoked the World Trade Centre bombings as a retaliation. We can be very clear about that, so our only option, given the statements that they have made and what they intend to do, is to remove the threat.

Harold Best: Does the Prime Minister agree that no one in the modern world could not have been aware of the events in September that cause us to be here today, but it seems that some people do not live in the modern world? I hope that the Prime Minister understands that we need to develop our ideas about democracy, fairness and justice to the extent that they can be transmitted to those who are not part of our modern world and that we should fight that battle with equal fervour as we are now fighting the hard battle in Afghanistan.

Tony Blair: I agree that it is important that we make sure that at the same time as we take the necessary military action we advance the cause of justice and the eradication of poverty wherever we can in the world. That is an important part of the action and there is a general sense of that being our objective, not just in Britain, but in the United States of America.

Hugh Robertson: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a clear danger that after a period of heavy shelling the Taliban may simply drift away into the hills? What plans does the alliance have to exercise influence on the ground after they have done that and to protect the civilians from reprisals from advancing armies?

Tony Blair: Obviously, we are aware of the potential difficulties in tracing and tracking down the Taliban, and indeed Osama bin Laden, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not enter into details of that potential military operation.

Robert Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of Russia and the former Soviet republics in central Asia has been and will be crucial in the fight against international terrorism? Does he agree that it has perhaps not been sufficiently appreciated in the west that there have been more Russian lives lost as a result of extremist terrorism than there were British lives lost in New York a few weeks ago? Does not this provide a real opportunity for a better alliance and future with our Russian comrades—[Laughter.] I am addressing my comrade now. Does not this provide a real opportunity for a better alliance with Russia as a result of its full participation in the coalition which my right hon. Friend has done so much to promote?

Tony Blair: I hope this does not shock my hon. Friend too much, but I agree with him entirely. One of the most important aspects of what has happened since 11 September has been the position of Russia. I congratulate President Putin and the Russian Government on the support they have given. It has not been easy for them to support the United States, but they have done so, and that support has been very substantial. It has been substantial logistic support, using forces not for military action but in support of the military action that is being undertaken. That is important.
	When we discuss what might change after 11 September, in an attempt to see what good might come out of such a terrible event, it might be that one of those things will be a different and better relationship between Russia and the United States and Russia and the west. Those things are potentially changing now, and it is important that it is made more solid in the days and weeks ahead. When I was in Moscow on Thursday night, I found that the strength of support from President Putin and the Russian Government was remarkable. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is right to remember that Russia lost hundreds of people in 1999 through terrorist attacks and it has a clear interest in suppressing such networks of terror.

Gerald Howarth: Further to the points made by my comrade, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), may I suggest that one practical step that could be taken to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world would be if some of our Muslim leaders were to go to the various Muslim capitals where there appear to be problems and explain to the Muslim fraternity why they are supporting the United Kingdom Government in their action against the perpetrators of these atrocities? In that way, they would be explaining to the Muslim world that this is not an attack on Islam and reinforcing the contribution that they could make in the United Kingdom.

Tony Blair: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but of course it is also the case that there are many Muslim clerics in those Muslim countries who strongly condemn the atrocities of 11 September and support the taking of action. The difficulty is that they will receive less publicity than those who are condemning the action we are taking. It is important that their voices are heard. With very few exceptions, British Muslims have been united in their condemnation of what has happened, and that is an important message to send to the rest of the world.

Anne Begg: No one will know better than my right hon. Friend how anxious a time it is when a country embarks on military action. There are anxieties for the future, for our troops who will be involved and, in this case, for the people of Afghanistan and the potential innocent victims caught up in any repercussions. I am seeking my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will put as much energy as he has undoubtedly put into military action into ensuring that the humanitarian action is effective and targeted, so that at least some good will come out of these terrible events.

Tony Blair: I will do so. One of the reasons why I will do so is for the sake of the victims of 11 September and their families. The families I have met who lost people on 11 September have, to a person, not wanted us to act out of revenge or to visit increased suffering upon others. They want us to make sure that, while we bring those responsible to justice, we do so in a way that minimises the suffering of innocent people and helps those in Afghanistan who are suffering under the Taliban regime. There are substantial reasons. The humanitarian action that we take is vitally important. There are huge difficulties involved in it, but it is important and, at the conclusion of the conflict, it will also be important that we stand by the commitments that we have given the Afghan people and that I have repeated today.

Richard Allan: The Prime Minister has already acknowledged that some of the people who have been most terrorised by the actions of Osama bin Laden are members of the British Muslim community, who are naturally fearful about the impact on community relations. Many of them must now be concerned about the impact of the military action that bin Laden has brought down upon their friends and relatives in the affected region. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has plans to improve the advice and support facilities for British citizens and those resident in Britain who are of Afghan or Pakistani origin, who must naturally be very worried today and will be worried in the weeks ahead?

Tony Blair: We understand their concern and worry. The Foreign Office and other relevant Government Departments are doing what they can to reassure people and to advise them. It is a difficult situation for people who are caught up in it, but we are doing what we can. We recognised early on after 11 September that this would be a problem and we will carry on doing what we can.

Jon Owen Jones: How concerned is the Prime Minister that so far practical support given by various Arab countries and, indeed, our NATO ally Turkey is considerably less than that given in the Gulf war? In that regard, how important is it to convince those Governments that when the pieces of the kaleidoscope stop turning the patterns and colours in the middle east will be somewhat different than they are today?

Tony Blair: Those countries are giving us support, of course, but it is important that we carry on convincing people in the Muslim and Arab world about the nature of this struggle, why we are undertaking it and how it is important to see that alongside our commitment on the humanitarian front and ensuring that the middle east peace process is restarted and works. There is a clearer understanding of that now than there was a few weeks ago. As I said a moment ago, it is extremely important that we carry on making that case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is of paramount importance to maintain the present broadly based alliance of countries throughout the world against terrorism and, therefore, it is essential to maintain diplomatic initiatives to explain to all our alliance partners—in particular, the front-line Islamic states—that the specific military actions that we are taking are set against specific objectives? Does he agree that it will be even more important to maintain that diplomatic initiative if we consider that action against any country other than Afghanistan is necessary?

Tony Blair: We should act only on evidence, but the hon. Gentleman's general point is right. It is important that we continue to persuade people in the Arab and Muslim world as to the nature of the conflict and why we are undertaking it. There is an understanding. For America or any of the other allies to stand aside after the slaughter of more than 6,000 people in such a terrorist atrocity as the attack of 11 September would be unthinkable. People in the Arab and Muslim world understand that. What they then need to understand clearly is that the action that we are taking is based on our genuine conviction and belief—soundly based—that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were responsible and that the Taliban regime is shielding them. I like to think that the way in which we have acted since 11 September should give them confidence.
	We did not send out missiles on the first night just for effect. We considered carefully, although it was obvious that bin Laden was the prime suspect from the very beginning. We have assembled more and more evidence and given the time to try to ensure that the military targets are properly chosen. We have given the Taliban time to comply. They have had every opportunity—it is not as if they could have been in any doubt as to the situation and what we were demanding. By the nature of our response we have been able to convince people, but I agree that we have to keep on doing that the entire time. We do it against the background of massive disinformation from the al-Qaeda network and those who want to provoke conflict between Islam and other countries.

Stephen Pound: The Prime Minister has rightly given praise to our men and women in the front line, and I think that he speaks for the nation in doing so. Does he agree that there are also heroes on the home front preparing this nation for the most awful eventualities and that those heroes include those who guard us here tonight? Is he aware that this afternoon David Shelmerdine, the chief executive of the Scout Association, contacted my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, to offer all the 3,000-plus scout headquarters in this country should they be needed? Does he agree that that spirit of community is one of the reasons why we will never be defeated and why this civilisation is worth fighting for?

Tony Blair: First, I pay tribute to the offer made on behalf of the Scout Association of its headquarters. Secondly, I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments, in this sense particularly. There are many people working in our public services, not least the police and others, who are having to work extremely hard and spend an awful lot of time guarding us at the moment. They are cancelling their leave. I know that they will have the gratitude of the whole House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments).
	That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday 15 October.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Paul Marsden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is growing disquiet that for the third time Parliament has been recalled yet hon. Members have been denied a vote on this war. Can you confirm to me that there will be no vote? Is it in order for hon. Members to vote on an Adjournment debate if similar occasions arise, when we are denied a substantive motion by the Government? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: It seems as though the hon. Gentleman is getting advice already. Procedural advice is best given privately at the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come to the Chair, I will give him some private advice.

Coalition against International Terrorism

Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rightly suggested that there should be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches because a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. Will you confirm that if short interventions are taken by speakers, time will be added on to their eight minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly allow adequate injury time.

Geoff Hoon: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, last night British forces, acting alongside the United States armed forces, took part in the first phase of the military response to the attacks on the United States on 11 September. Firing submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, they took part in a carefully targeted strike against Osama bin Laden, his terrorist network and military installations of the Taliban regime that is supporting him. He told the House earlier that we also assisted the United States by agreeing to its use of facilities on Diego Garcia. Indeed, we are assisting them in that same way tonight.
	I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces. In recent months, they have demonstrated time and again that they are among the very best in the world. We ask them to serve in difficult and demanding situations. We ask them to carry out dangerous missions and they do, without fail and always with great skill and ability.
	Our armed forces' recent success in leading NATO's weapons collection operation in Macedonia exemplified everything that we have come to expect from them. I was privileged to meet the men and women of the Headquarters Task Force Harvest and the 2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment when I visited them in Macedonia last month. This is yet another example of British service men and women acting as a force for good in the world. We are rightly proud of their courage, their sense of duty, and their professionalism. They are rightly held in high esteem throughout the world.

Edward Leigh: It was a privilege for me, as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, to be with the fleet last week and see that dedication. The Prime Minister mentioned that air assets might be used. It is a matter of public knowledge that our air assets in that region are the eight GR7 Harriers on HMS Illustrious. Of course, the assets available to the Americans are hugely greater. They can fly with minimal risk. Will the Secretary of State confirm that while our RAF pilots are totally dedicated, brave and will do what they are asked to do, they will be sent into action only on clear military advice that their effort is needed, not just to provide political support to the Americans, important as that is? Of course, such support has been provided by the use of cruise missiles.

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with the relevant air assets in more detail in a moment. First, I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats for expressing their thoughts about the families of service men and women. This is an anxious time for them and, indeed, for us all. Just as we rely on them to defend us, so we must also ensure their safety and that of their families. Our military bases throughout the world are on a high state of alert. We are vigilant. We will not be intimidated by the threats of terrorists. Last night's action and, indeed, the further action now under way should have made that very clear.
	The strikes conducted last night were aimed at damaging, disrupting and destroying al-Qaeda's terrorist network camps and elements of the military infrastructure of its Taliban supporters that have allowed Afghanistan to be used as a base for international terrorism. Clearly, the attacks supported our immediate objectives: to bring those responsible for the attacks of 11 September to account; to prevent them from posing a continuing terrorist threat; and to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism.
	The 30 targets included four terrorist training camps and a range of Taliban military facilities, including airfields and air defence sites capable of threatening our operations in the future. Action against such varied targets requires a wide range of forces. Most of these came from the United States. Obviously, it took the lead. But, as the House will want to know, the United Kingdom has three nuclear submarines—HMS Superb, HMS Trafalgar and HMS Triumph—in the region. We were fortunate that exercise Saif Sareea meant that so many UK military assets were available. Tomahawk land attack missiles were fired at one of the targets, a terrorist site.
	I recognise that the House will also want to know about the effectiveness of last night's strikes. Detailed battle damage assessment is still under way. The House would not expect me to announce specific details while the initial phase of the operation continues. However, we can say that initial indications are that coalition operations were successful in achieving their objective of destroying and degrading elements of the al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist and military facilities. There is more to be done. Last night was the first strike. A second night of attacks is under way. There will be further attacks.

Alan Simpson: I know that the Secretary of State, along with the Prime Minister, will have given enormous thought to the risk that in a country as fractured, complex and poor as Afghanistan, bombing will simply produce more terrorists than it kills. If the purpose of our bombing strategy is either to remove the Taliban or so to weaken the infrastructure of the al-Qaeda network as to allow subsequent troop involvements to dismantle it, will the Secretary of State say whether Britain intends to go to the United Nations to seek a mandate that, rather than defining the precise military purposes of the involvement, sets the parameters, aims and limitations of such on-going international involvement in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with the role of the United Nations in due course, but I assure my hon. Friend that the attacks have been against legitimate military targets and that those attacks are wholly and entirely consistent with international law and the United Nations charter.

Alex Salmond: The vast majority of Members have concluded—I hope, reluctantly—that military action had become inevitable. However, under article 51 of the United Nations charter—the right of self-defence—any military action by member states must be reported immediately to the Security Council. My understanding is that the United States Government have done so and published the letter. The question that the Prime Minister did not answer is the obvious one: have the United Kingdom Government reported under article 51, and will that letter be published?

Geoff Hoon: This is a coalition operation and I have no doubt that, for technical legal purposes, we are covered by the notification that the United States has given, but I will certainly investigate whether that legal advice is right and whether we need to make a formal notification ourselves as a country.
	In dealing with media reports of bombs and missiles, I am confident that the reports so far of attacks on civilian areas are unnecessarily alarmist. Our targeting selection processes are demanding and we have taken very considerable care to minimise any risk to the people of Afghanistan. Detonations at nearby targets and anti-aircraft fire can easily give the impression, particularly at night, that civilian areas are under attack. I can assure the House that that was not the case.
	I want to emphasise that neither the Afghan civilian population nor their homes and property have been targeted. All 30 sites that were attacked were terrorist camps or military installations. Three, as the Prime Minister said, were in Kabul and four were close to other large settlements, but 23 were in remote areas of Afghanistan. Claims by the Afghan media should be treated as what they are—claims by a media network that is no more than a mouthpiece of the Taliban regime. We can expect plenty of propaganda in the days ahead, so I ask the House to remember that no independent journalists are given permission to be inside Afghanistan.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the Secretary of State because although we in the House have willed the ends and—without dissent, I think—the means, many honest and decent people across the country, including the leaders of the Muslim community, may have been taken in by claims of collateral damage affecting civilians. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear to people, as far as possible, that those claims have no substance, and furthermore, do his best to bring the Muslim leaders and those many decent people who support them on board in the action that is being taken.

Geoff Hoon: The latter suggestion is sensible. Clearly, as regards the former, the situation will depend on the detailed battle damage assessment that is under way. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not make further observations about that at this stage.
	I want to say something about future operations.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: In a second.
	In addition to the Tomahawk missile-equipped submarines, we have made available Royal Air Force reconnaissance and other support aircraft. Those began to deploy to the region today and will be available to support further operations during the coming days.
	Military action is never taken lightly. But in this case our justification is plain. The attacks on the United States involved the murder of more than 6,000 innocent people, including scores of our fellow citizens. Tens of thousands are now grieving the loss of friends and family.
	We know, without doubt, who was responsible for what happened in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network planned and carried out those attacks. The Prime Minister has already released evidence that makes that clear. But bin Laden's guilt goes back far beyond 11 September. Hundreds of innocent civilians were murdered and more than 4,500 injured when al-Qaeda bombed the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998. Seventeen United States service men were killed and many more injured when the USS Cole was attacked last October.
	The evidence reveals that bin Laden and his network were able to carry out those attacks on the United States because the Taliban regime knowingly gave them shelter and support. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban support and feed off each other. In return for the support that they give him, he trains their forces and fights alongside them in Afghanistan's civil war. Both bin Laden and the Taliban profit from the drugs trade.
	That evidence has been accepted now by Governments and international organisations throughout the world—including Pakistan, Russia, NATO and all our European partners.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State mentioned Pakistan. I am sure that he and the whole House agree that General Musharraf's Government in Pakistan have been particularly robust in their support for the coalition's action against international terrorism. He will also be well aware that Pakistan itself is a nuclear-armed state. Can he reassure the House that the British Government and their allies in the coalition will do all that they can to bolster General Musharraf from any attempts by extremist elements in his country to undermine his Government because of their support for the fight against terrorism?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman says, Pakistan is playing an important role in the present situation. It is important that Pakistan remains stable. It is equally important, as General Musharraf has said, that Pakistan moves towards the re-establishment of democracy. That is something that the Government there have accepted, and that, perhaps more than anything, is the key to the stability of Pakistan's future.
	Osama bin Laden has consistently shown a total disregard for the lives of civilians, whatever their faith, race or nationality. He and all who support and protect him must be brought to account for their crimes. We must also work to prevent them from inflicting more suffering on innocent people.

Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State knows that he and the Prime Minister have carried almost the whole House with them, because the indication of military action has been clear and specific as to its objectives. Is he aware that there is now some loose talk that that military action should be extended to other countries, including, for example, Iraq? Is he aware of any evidence that would justify the extension of the military action in that direction?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that we emphasise that our priority target has always been to bring Osama bin Laden, his associates and those who would support him to justice. What is important about that is that the action that we are taking will send a clear signal to all those countries around the world that might be tempted to continue support for international terrorism, that this is the fate that befalls them. So what we are doing in Afghanistan sends a very clear signal around the world.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly will; my apologies.

Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend.
	Returning to propaganda, can my right hon. Friend give assurances that the Government played no role in the BBC's decision to switch its "Panorama" programme from the advertised discussion on prospects for peace to the programme on the background to the Afghanistan conflict, which may have given some justification for the bombings that later took place?

Geoff Hoon: I am as confident as I can be that the Government played no role in that, although I must say that, short of sleep last night, I did watch the programme and I thought that it was a very interesting contribution to the debate.
	Neither the United States nor any of her partners wanted to take military action. The United States sought a peaceful solution. We gave it our full support in its tireless diplomatic efforts. The Taliban had every chance to avoid what happened last night. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is entitled to be heard. There is too much conversation going on in the House.

Geoff Hoon: We gave the Taliban the chance to surrender bin Laden and his associates for trial and to offer proof that they no longer supported terrorism. They had more than two weeks to comply, but they continued to prevaricate and to lie. We warned the Taliban regime that they were running out of time. We warned them that they faced powerful military action. They did not believe us. Enough was enough. Last night, the United States acted in legitimate self-defence, in accordance with international law and, specifically, with article 51 of the United Nations charter. So did we.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Accepting, as I certainly do, that the United States and the international community have legitimacy to enter Afghanistan, if necessary by force—certainly by force—in order to arrest and apprehend Osama bin Laden, will the Secretary of State tell us how the present bombing campaign will assist in that very precise task?

Geoff Hoon: Under article 51, any state is entitled to act in self-defence to protect its citizens and entitled to use proportionate force to achieve that. That is precisely the basis on which I have cited article 51, and precisely the basis on which the United States and the United Kingdom have acted.
	It would be wrong to think that the United States and the United Kingdom are acting alone. Many other nations have offered military support. Last night, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I called leaders around the world to brief them on the military action that had begun. I spoke to my counterparts in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium. They were united in their support for the action that we have taken. They have all offered a military contribution to future action.
	We are grateful for the support for the strikes that is coming from around the world. On that note, I must ask the House to excuse my early departure from this debate as I have to fly to Russia for further talks with my Russian colleague in the light of the present situation. As the Prime Minister said yesterday:
	"this coalition has strengthened—not weakened—in the 26 days since the atrocity occurred."
	Last week, NATO announced the action that it is taking to support the United States, following the determination that the attack on the United States had come from abroad and could, therefore, be handled under article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty.
	Today, the alliance announced that the North Atlantic Council had approved the deployment of five airborne early warning aircraft to the United States to backfill American assets and free them up for operations in the east. NATO is also preparing to deploy the standing naval force Mediterranean—a multinational force, currently under British command—to the eastern Mediterranean. Those are clear demonstrations of the alliance's support for the United States.

Nicholas Soames: When the right hon. Gentleman visits the Russian Ministry of Defence, is it his intention to try to persuade the Russians to play a greater role in the alliance? Is he aware that there is a Russian infantry division in Tajikistan? Is it the intention that, in extremis, the Russians should be invited to use those troops?

Geoff Hoon: It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of those conversations than for me to anticipate their result.

Nick Palmer: I fully support everything that my right hon. Friend has said so far, but ask for clarification on one point. Have we given any thought to what will happen if the alliance is successful in apprehending some members of the network but some of them are suspected of, or confess to, activities in Russia, Chechnya or elsewhere? Will they be handed over to the countries where they have committed atrocities?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly that would seem to be the most sensible outcome of such a situation.
	It is not simply the alliance that is giving support; the work against international terrorism continues in a number of international organisations. United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 is the first resolution to impose obligations on all states to respond to a global threat to peace and international security. It focuses on two key areas: suppressing the financing of terrorism and denying terrorists a safe haven from which to operate. All states owe it to the victims of terrorist atrocities to implement its provisions as soon as possible.
	Military action against terrorism has only just begun. We and all our allies and partners are determined to root out terrorism wherever we find it. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will mount a relentless, deliberate and sustained campaign aimed at securing our objectives. Our armed forces will play their full part in that, alongside their allies from the United States, France, Germany, Australia and Canada and from other countries such as Spain, which has offered to contribute to military operations.

Mike Gapes: When my right hon. Friend meets his Russian counterparts, and in his discussions with his Cabinet colleagues, will he consider how the Security Council can advance the process of establishing in Afghanistan a United Nations transitional administration or a situation similar to that which existed for 10 years in Cambodia?

Geoff Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, we are just at the start of military operations and I do not think that it is appropriate yet to speculate on how they will conclude. However, I am sure that that is one of the options that will be considered.
	Military action is only one part of our wider response, which also includes important diplomatic, legal, economic and humanitarian measures. This broad campaign will be a long one. It will be hard and it may demand a high price. However, we have no option other than to act.
	In conclusion, I should like to deal with two further points. First, we have no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan. They are as much the victims of the terrorists as anyone else. They face poverty, drought and hunger while the Taliban regime connives with terrorists. Our commitment to the Afghan people is simple and sincere. We want to help them build a stable, peaceful and prosperous country.
	The United Kingdom is playing its full part in the international relief efforts to stave off famine in Afghanistan this winter and among the 4.5 million refugees who have fled the Taliban regime. We were the first country to pledge aid money for the refugees— £36 million—on top of the £35 million that we have given to Afghanistan since 1997. We are ready to give more help if that is required.
	Secondly, we have no quarrel with Islam. The United Kingdom is a multicultural and multi-faith society. We share many common beliefs, including a respect for the life of innocent people. Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters do not share those values. They are not "Islamic terrorists"; they are terrorists and nothing more. Far, far too many Muslims have suffered and died because of bin Laden, as so many people and Governments across the Islamic world recognise. Their help and support in defeating terrorism is vital.
	We know that defeating international terrorism and its supporters can be neither easy nor quick. It will be a long and sometimes painful process. The armed forces are ready for that challenge. They are well trained and well equipped. They are resolved to make their full contribution to that victory. I am confident that they will succeed.

Bernard Jenkin: On behalf of the Opposition, I express my thanks to the Secretary of State for the way in which he has informed us as fully as he can of the continuing developments. The international situation is clearly fragile. As the right hon. Gentleman's imminent journey to Russia is obviously extremely important, we understand that he cannot remain for the whole debate. I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing him well on the task that he is undertaking on behalf of his country.
	It is of course fear and uncertainty that have preoccupied everyone since 11 September and during the events that have followed. At this time, however, it is the men and women of our armed forces who have to face particular danger and uncertainty. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that they will be properly resourced in their tasks. They are the ones upon whom we call in times of crisis. They are the ones who are always ready to face whatever challenge we ask them to meet. They always act with guts, good humour and supreme professionalism. They and their families are in our thoughts and prayers. They have our fullest admiration and respect.
	The events of 11 September so shocked the world not only because we could see the sheer horror on our television screens and in haunting still images in our newspaper, and not only because of the sheer scale of the attack: the real shock was what those events meant for the security of everyone in our own country, living in our towns and cities. The events of 11 September changed the world because they shattered the illusion of a safe and comfortable world, which we had taken for granted.
	I fully support the Government's intentions to step up emergency planning in our country. Every time we go to a restaurant or step on to a train or aeroplane; every time we see our children off to school, or a loved one off to work; and every time each of us steps into this building, at the back of our minds is the thought, "What will they do next?" That is of course the aim of the terrorists.
	That is why it is so important that we meet here, in this building and on this day, to show the terrorists that democracy will not be cowed. That is why it is so important that the House should continue to give the Government its full and unequivocal support for the action that they have taken. Indeed, that is why we commend the Prime Minister for the way in which he has responded to the crisis. He has ensured that Britain has played the fullest role in helping the United States to forge a truly extraordinary international alliance, in support of a comprehensive and restrained response that is proportionate to the threat that we face.
	The Taliban regime in Afghanistan have remained defiant and brought the consequences upon their own heads. The unequivocal evidence published by the Government last week clearly implicates Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. They can operate only because they are sustained by the Taliban Government. The Taliban could have chosen to hand over bin Laden and to cease their sponsorship of terrorism, but instead they have chosen to continue their support for bin Laden—the most notorious mass murderer of our age.
	Bin Laden now taunts us from his hideaway, rejoicing in the death he has wrought. This is no Muslim hero, but the twisted leader of an evil cult. On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in reiterating that this is not a war against Islam. Indeed, we join Muslims who want to defeat terrorism everywhere. The enemies of civilisation remain free, able and motivated to strike again. The United States and its allies have a clear obligation to confront the threat we all face.
	Last night's military action is not only justifiable in international law—I know that the Government have taken pains to ensure that that is so—but morally justified, because to baulk or to hesitate would be to let the terrorists once again set the agenda. The risks of taking action are far outweighed by the risks of taking no action.
	Of course it is right that Britain should be first in support of the United States in this action. Time and again over the past century, Britain and America have combined their military might in defence of freedom. This is not the pretext for one country blindly giving a blank cheque to another. This alliance is a genuine partnership based on mutual understanding, openness and trust.
	Britain possesses some unique military capabilities that complement those of the United States. Not only can we play a crucial military role, but the Anglo-American alliance in NATO is the most important political and diplomatic alliance for the free world. NATO has had its many doubters, but now is the time to reaffirm its primacy. The Prime Minister described how so many countries are ready to contribute, but NATO is the linchpin of this action. Britain must be ready to make whatever further military commitments are necessary to sustain the effectiveness of the campaign.
	We share the Government's high hopes for the outcome of this action. We have confidence that it has been well targeted to minimise civilian casualties. The targets selected are Taliban and al-Qaeda military assets and terrorist bases. We hope that the action succeeds in changing the Taliban regime and that the Government of Afghanistan hand over bin Laden and his accomplices to face the proper course of justice. We hope that it will give the aid agencies the earliest opportunity to resume the aid effort, which is so desperately needed to rescue millions of Afghan people from the risk of starvation this winter.
	I join many in the House in commenting on the importance of the aid programme. Alongside the war against terrorism, we regard the aid effort as an equally essential task. It is not for show or propaganda. Britain needs to demonstrate that it is not just a gesture to salve our conscience. It is fundamental to the values that we hold—the values that bin Laden would destroy. Our best interests will be served only if we have the best interests of the Afghan people at heart as well.

Hugh Bayley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Prime Minister and others that the struggle in which we are engaged will be long term and that we need to build a better future over the long term for the people of Afghanistan. Will his party make a commitment to match the growth in international development spending that the Government have introduced? That is an important means by which to provide the humanitarian support that he describes.

Bernard Jenkin: This is hardly the moment at which to extract spending commitments from Her Majesty's official Opposition, but I shall be interested in the answer if the hon. Gentleman puts that question to the Secretary of State for International Development when she replies to the debate.
	Beside our hopes, let us have no illusions. The British people have long and bitter experience of terrorism. The Government can be assured that the British public do not expect victory in one battle, nor do they want revenge. They want their elected leaders to smash the machinery of terrorism. They know that there are no easy solutions. That is why it is timely for the Government to warn that last night's action was but the first phase of possibly a long war against international terrorism.
	Indeed, from now on, this must be a war of eternal vigilance, not against one terrorist or one terrorist state, but against all terrorism and all states that nurture it, for this is not a war with frontiers or territories. Our enemies are not soldiers who face us openly but evil criminals who steal away in the night. They depend on corrupt or incapable Governments to provide safe haven for their operations.
	We must therefore be prepared to ask questions about the role of other Governments' relationships with terrorism—this is not loose talk, as was said earlier—and that may give rise to some uncomfortable answers. At this stage, we have no evidence that the Government of Iraq had any direct role in the atrocities of bin Laden, but we know that Iraq has sponsored terrorism before and that Saddam is constantly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction as part of his personal arsenal of terror. Sooner or later, the evidence may compel us to act in such cases.
	The terrorists exploit international organised crime to finance their campaigns of terror. The Prime Minister has pointed out how the Taliban and al-Qaeda thrive on the heroin trade, but we also know that IRA terrorists have been paid drug money to train Colombia's terrorists in their deadly and evil trade. That shows how networks of international crime and terrorism lead straight to the streets of our own country. It also shows that our security is inseparable from the security and stability of every other country in the world.

Mike O'Brien: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with care. The Government and the United States have tried to bring together a coalition based on precise strategic objectives—dealing with Osama bin Laden and his terrorists and the Taliban who support them where necessary. Is this the time to broaden those strategic objectives to include others, which may make it much more difficult to maintain the coalition that the British and American Governments so strongly seek to maintain? Is this the right time to set out those alternative objectives?

Bernard Jenkin: I do not think that they are alternative objectives. They are inseparable from that same objective. The United States Government and the hon. Gentleman's own Government have consistently made it clear that we must root out terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head.
	Terrorists have too often prospered from our complacency and we must never be complacent again. We must give every support to Governments of countries such as Colombia and Pakistan, where President Musharraf faces frightening domestic turmoil for having the courage to support the campaign against terrorism.

Geraint Davies: A Russian general recently said that in the hills of Afghanistan a man on a donkey is as effective as four men in a tank. Will the hon. Gentleman address the need to get the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan behind this process by offering them a vision of a political and economic renewal for the future of Afghanistan so that they know that this is a war not against them but against the terrorists?

Bernard Jenkin: That is exactly what I was referring to earlier. It is important that the aid package provides for the long term. It is the other side of the coin of the military action that is taking place.
	We fear that the aid programme in and around Afghanistan will not be delivered. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, will wish to press her counterpart on those matters. How effective have been the air drops of food so far? When will it be possible to restore food convoys to the starving people of Afghanistan? Are we yet in a position to discuss what military support would be needed to ensure that food convoys were properly protected so that they could get through?
	We must urge and pray for balance and restraint in the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is worth reflecting that while the peace process was in progress over the past two years, Osama bin Laden was plotting 11 September, which was designed to destroy those hopes of peace.
	The horrible freshness of 11 September will fade in our minds. Other political distractions will come to the fore. There will be some with opposing views who will try to sap the nation's resolve, but now it is the job of us all, including Opposition Members, to ensure that never again do we drop our guard.
	This hour and every hour we remember our armed forces, alongside the Americans and our other allies, who are prepared and ready to do whatever they are called on to do. That is their job and they are devoted to it. We thank them for their devotion. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them and those whom they have left at home who love them every hour of every day.
	We send our service men into danger, on to the streets of Northern Ireland, into the skies over Iraq and into the jungle of Sierra Leone. In the Balkans, our forces make up the greater part of NATO's bulwark for peace—in SFOR in Bosnia, in KFOR in Kosovo and more recently in the "essential harvest" of weapons in Macedonia. They trained for war so that they can keep the peace. They are war-makers only to be peace-makers. They are the finest in the world. On deployment or on exercise, they are doing what they love to do, but we should never take them for granted. God go with them.

Gisela Stuart: This is the third occasion on which we have met in the House to discuss this matter, and some of the newspapers have suggested that it is time to stop talking and begin to speculate. It would be absolutely wrong at this moment to speculate because we have reached the point at which we have to focus on keeping together the coalition that has been built up over the past few weeks. Now is the time to test whether that coalition will deliver, and deliver not only words but actions.
	We have a clearly defined objective in the immediate term, which is to deal with international terrorists, as well as long-term objectives that have been mentioned by some hon. Members. Those long-term objectives should not distract us from the task at hand. People have talked about war. The traditional definition of warfare, and particularly of a just war, involves legitimate authorities fighting each other. These events have nothing to do with legitimate authorities.
	In this case, an international conspiracy is fighting, not against a particular nation or authority but against an international order. Within that war, we will recognise some elements of traditional warfare, and yesterday's actions fall into that category, but there will be other elements, such as international terrorism and money laundering, that we will not immediately recognise as warfare. The Prime Minister, with the United States and our European allies, as well as some countries that a few weeks ago we would have had difficulty in recognising as allies, have formed a coalition to fight international terrorists. Many hon. Members, including myself, must express humility. I did not expect the United States Administration, and President Bush in particular, to be as thoughtful in their response and to wait as long as they did before they took action. On this occasion, I am grateful that I was wrong.
	Some people would say that President Bush has followed in the great tradition of people such as Montgomery and Colin Powell, who said in the past that he would rather wait and get things 100 per cent. right. That is what we are trying to do. However, we need to remain resolved to deal with the application of force because we are now reaching a point that is very uncomfortable. We must face up to the means that we are willing to use to reach our ends. It is time to hold together.
	While remembering the atrocities, we must ask how we deal with the ideas that gave rise to the Taliban and to bin Laden. Those ideas are fanaticism, which must be dealt with in a variety of ways. There are conflicting schools of thought about that. Denis Healey used to say that no idea has ever stopped a tank, and he was right. A French general said that one cannot ride on horseback into war against an idea. However, we need to deal with those ideas. We must use physical force, but in the long term we must deal with fanaticism, and with the fact that it is extremely inward looking.
	Some hon. Members have mentioned last night's "Panorama". It was absolutely right to show the programme because it was made some years ago, when no one could accuse it of being warmongering propaganda, by an independent journalist, and it shows the atrocities committed by the Taliban. It was appropriate to remind us what has been happening in Afghanistan for several years and what kind of regime we are dealing with. We must remember those atrocities.
	How do we change minds in the long term? We do it by reaching out to everyone with ideas. The Prime Minister said that he was proud of our armed forces, and I agree. However, I am also extremely proud of another institution—the BBC World Service. We need to shore up its facilities and programming at this time. It has been extremely responsive and has extended its coverage in a variety of native languages. We need to remind the BBC of its public service broadcasting responsibilities not only in the United Kingdom but through the World Service. I pay tribute to the World Service and encourage all hon. Members to allow it to develop further.
	Britain has much to bring to the coalition. Limited comparisons can be made between Britain's actions in the second world war and our actions now against the Taliban. Britain's role was not only to defeat Nazism but to build a foundation for a civic society in what became West Germany, which is now part of a united Germany. That was a very long war. We must accept that it takes a very long time to rebuild a society that has had all its civic foundations, including education, destroyed or permeated by fanatics. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is not a traditional war like that of 50 years ago, but analogies can be drawn.
	I remind the House that the short-term objective is very limited—it is to deal with international terrorists. Now is not the time to try to widen those parameters or to ask what the next step should be. We must focus on dealing with bin Laden and those who are associated with him and on keeping the coalition together. At the same time, we must work towards the long-term objective of reaching people's minds. I am sure that we will hear much more later about providing support for the people of Afghanistan to build a civic society. Those are not mutually exclusive aims.
	I urge everyone here to remember that now is not the time to try to negotiate with people with whom we cannot negotiate. The left in particular should have learned that lesson from the 1930s. This is not warmongering; it is recognition of the point at which talking has come to an end and only action will speak. We are at that point now.

Paul Keetch: Through the Secretary of State for International Development, I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for letting me know that he was leaving for Moscow tonight and for the useful defence and intelligence briefing that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and I this afternoon. That was extremely important.
	I begin by offering the support of all Liberal Democrat Members for the actions undertaken by United Kingdom and United States forces in Afghanistan last night and tonight. I also unreservedly associate my comments with those made from the Government and Conservative Front Benches in connection with our wholehearted support for Britain's armed forces. In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister said that Britain possessed some of the best armed forces in the world. In many ways, we possess the best in the world, as I am sure all hon. Members agree.
	The Prime Minister also paid tribute today to the immense burden borne by the families of service personnel at times such as these. He mentioned their deep anxiety, which we all share tonight. The news that our forces are once again in action is important and chilling. There can be no more important decision for any Government or Prime Minister to take than to send our troops into action, and there can be no more important decision for any Member of Parliament than to support that action. It is not taken lightly.
	We understand that no military action is risk free. Our armed forces have precise weaponry and effective training, but we know that there is no such thing as a casual operation. The risks of engagement exist, but once our armed forces are involved we support them and their families. We back them to the hilt and we pray for their safe return home.
	Liberal Democrat Members know about the armed forces, as do all hon. Members with bases in their constituencies. The armed forces are our friends and constituents. For example, the Royal Air Force has a base in the constituency represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Army has one in Colchester, and the Royal Marines and the Fleet Air Arm have bases in our west country constituencies. As individual Members of Parliament, we know the effect that the armed forces have on our communities and constituencies.

Bill Wiggin: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the base that used to be in his constituency is now in mine?

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has made a silly remark, as I was about to say that I do not have a base in my constituency now that 22 Special Air Services Regiment has moved two miles to the base at Credenhill. That is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but many people who work there live in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman should have waited before jumping in with a rather silly point.
	My experience of having training establishments in my constituency—and, at one time, a base—means that I know the importance of the action being undertaken. However, that is why Liberal Democrat Members understand and support the military action being taken tonight, which is targeted against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime who support it. They are two sides of the same coin; the two organisations are intertwined. The action being taken is aimed not at civilian targets but at military ones—air bases, terrorist training camps and air defence positions.
	The attacks have been designed to safeguard our armed forces and to protect the planes that are used, and to support the humanitarian effort that must now be directed at Afghanistan. It has been rightly said that we are not at war with the people of Afghanistan or with Islam, but that we are fighting a sustained campaign against terrorism. We have learned to our cost, in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, that words do count. We must therefore ensure that all utterances are proportionate and considered. We should not fall, as some have, into the trap of using empty phrases that may come back to haunt us later. We must remember that we are dealing with people's lives and that safeguarding the lives of innocent civilians—in New York, London or even in Kabul—is a duty, not a desire.
	What does the action mean? So far, we have seen only the beginnings of a very long campaign. At every step of the way we will be asked to be patient. The foe that has been targeted will not be beaten by air power alone. The Taliban fighters who protect bin Laden and his own fanatical followers are, primarily, a sort of light infantry. They are difficult to attack from the air and are less dependent on a central command system.
	Although air-to-air strikes maintain the coalition's credibility in the short term, we must be prepared for a long and involved campaign, much of which will be unseen and unrecognised. It will consist of more than fireworks in the desert, but will also require long, hard and methodical intelligence action. We support that action as well.
	We must recall why we are fighting. This country—and this House—is no stranger to terrorist attack. However, the attack of 11 September caused the biggest loss of British life ever sustained in a single terrorist attack. There were 6,000 innocent people—possibly more—murdered in that attack. They were not soldiers or warriors, or even the politicians who direct forces; they were innocent men and women, of all faiths, nations and creeds. There were no demands and no warnings. Those people were simply slaughtered.
	The images that we saw on that dreadful day will stay with us for ever: a plane ploughing into the World Trade Centre, buildings falling, New York firemen running up stairs while others run away. Those will be the main images of our lives. That is why we support the action being taken by our armed forces again tonight. We should not allow such a terrible crime, such appalling loss of innocent life, ever to happen again.
	The Prime Minister mentioned the Taliban regime, and other hon. Members have described them. I shall not go into that again, although they are an appalling regime. The fact that at least 4 million people have fled Afghanistan to escape them is proof enough of what type of regime they are.
	There are 2 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and perhaps 1.5 million in Iran. It is possible that up to 1 million refugees are moving towards Pakistan and that 400,000 are moving to Iran. Moreover, we must not forget the numbers that have fled to the former Soviet republics. Those figures show that the humanitarian effort—the second pillar of our action—is just as important as the military action.
	We welcome the reports that 37,500 rations were dropped last night. That might be just a drop in the ocean, but it is an important drop in a very big ocean. I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will explain later what more needs to be done. Nothing can better win the hearts and confidence of a suffering people than the effort that has been made to relieve that suffering. I shall restate what I said last week, which is that we must never respond to terror with terror, but with justice and humanity.
	The third pillar of the action being taken is the great international coalition built so successfully by President Bush and so successfully supported by the Prime Minister. That coalition must be maintained. Muslim states, and Pakistan in particular, must be kept involved and informed. I congratulate the President and the Prime Minister on their valuable work. They recognise that our actions must be kept within the framework of international law. If we are to keep the coalition together we must work for self-defence, and never for revenge.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest risk to the coalition lies in broadening the front and the sphere of operations? Is not that the elephant trap set by Osama bin Laden, whose aim is to break up the coalition?

Paul Keetch: I agree entirely. We must remember that bin Laden wants the coalition to fall. He wants us to overreact and strike out. That would serve his purpose. That is why maintaining the international coalition is so valuable. Others may talk of extending the war aims, but I think that we should stick to what we have for a while.
	There have been fears about the justification for military action, and they need to be alleviated. We must assure people beyond doubt that the conflict will be just, proportionate and based on the principles of human rights and international law. That is why the coalition is so important.
	Tonight, our forces are in action again. It is right that the House of Commons should be meeting tonight to discuss that action—not with levity or laughter, but in all seriousness. That is what the people of our nation expect, and they will take note of any hon. Members who seek to do otherwise.

David Winnick: We shall undoubtedly hear from some parts of the world that the United States and Britain are engaged in a war against the Muslim world. That is a poisonous and malicious lie, and most of those who spread it know that. The coalition's inclusion of several Muslim states exposes the lie.
	What was the purpose of military intervention in Kosovo? It was clear: to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians and the Muslim population by Serb paramilitaries. If we were anti-Muslim and wanted to engage in the current action for that reason, as the liars claim, why did we intervene in Kosovo? Many of us pressed for that. Many hon. Members who support military action against international terrorism are those who pressed, as I did, for action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
	I am sure that many hon. Members remember the daily demonstrations in Whitehall, opposite 10 Downing street, by those who put forward the Serbian point of view. In truth, they expressed the Serbian paramilitary point of view. They accused us and the House of Commons of being pro-Muslim.
	Let us remember as well that the United States acted with other NATO countries not only in Kosovo: United States-led intervention helped to bring the bloody conflict in Bosnia to an end. At that time, the international community was again accused of being pro-Muslim. I wonder whether Milosevic in his prison cell would describe the western powers as anti-Muslim. I doubt it.
	Reference has rightly been made to various injustices in the world. I do not doubt that all hon. Members deplore the atrocities in Washington, New York and elsewhere on 11 September. No hon. Member takes the view, which is a form of sickness, that America asked for such action and that American guilt or sin justified the atrocities. No hon. Member would dream of suggesting that, and that also applies to the large majority of people in this country. However, the question for colleagues who oppose military action is simple: what alternative do they propose? That is a fair question, I think.
	It is all very well saying that the leader of the terrorist network should be brought to justice, but how? He is hardly likely to surrender. He is unlikely to give himself up, and the Taliban regime have no intention of giving him up. If we are wrong in supporting military action, what is the alternative method of bringing terrorists to justice or defeating them?
	Some people argue that there are so many injustices in the world that we should not worry too much about taking military action. Reference was rightly made in previous debates to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I wish that the international community would take stronger action to help the Palestinians and to form a Palestinian state, which should be no less viable and independent than Israel. There is also the need for a settlement in Kashmir, about which we hope that the Governments of India and Pakistan will be willing to continue to negotiate. The talks lasted only one day.
	I reiterate the Prime Minister's crucial point: the terrorists responsible for the atrocities in New York and Washington do not want the sort of settlement that we support. They do not want a solution to Israel's problems; they want the total destruction of the Israeli state. Even that would not satisfy them because they would want the whole of Palestine run along the lines of the current regime in Afghanistan. I am critical of Israel, but no hon. Member would argue that the Israeli state should be destroyed. However, the terrorists want precisely that. Our aims—settlements and negotiations—be they in the middle east or in Kashmir, are the opposite of the terrorists' requirements. We should have no illusions about that.
	My initial view was that the United States would take immediate military action after 11 September. I am glad that I was wrong. I am sure that several hon. Members shared my view. I am pleased that the United States showed diplomacy and restraint, as I said in a question to the Prime Minister last week. I was in Philadelphia on a private visit on 11 September. However great people's anger, they went about their business on the following days, and there was no hysteria. There was, though, all the anger that one would rightly expect.
	The murderous network that we face can, like fascism, be appeased or fought. It is as simple as that. Let us have no illusions: if we appease the terrorists, they, like the fascists in the past, would become bolder and even more determined. They would believe that they were safe because the west did not retaliate and there was no international action. Appeasement would encourage them. The international coalition has made the right choice between appeasement and fighting evil. I support the action that is being undertaken—destroying the murderous network is in the interests of not only the west but the civilised world.

Teddy Taylor: The one clear message of the debate is that we have no difficulty in convincing ourselves. In most debates, we try to convince people that we are right and they are wrong, but apart from the hon. Member who sought the private advice of the Speaker and disappeared from the Chamber immediately thereafter, everyone is agreed. I therefore want to make a short speech with some points on which, I hope, hon. Members will reflect.
	I hope that one result of the appalling tragedy in New York will be that all of us in the alliance agree not to support terrorist organisations in future. Our job is to convince not ourselves, but others in the world, especially the Muslim nations. We should show some humility because we have supported, financed and used many of the organisations that cause the appalling problems to achieve our objectives when that was convenient.
	For example, a brief reference was made to the appalling situation in Iraq and the possibility that the Iraqis might be bombed. I have been a Member of Parliament for a long time, and I remember the time when Iraq and Saddam Hussein were our secret cousins in the middle east. They did our work for us and got help, finance and aid from the United States and the United Kingdom. When we see the appalling terrorist camps that are being bombed in Afghanistan, we should remember the simple fact that they were supplied and paid for with money from the United States and elsewhere in the battle to remove the Russians from Afghanistan.
	I hope therefore that we shall agree not to employ or try to use terrorist organisations to help our ends and endeavours in future. I was well aware of the position when I went to the north of Pakistan on a private visit with my family. I informed the Pakistan Government that I was going, and I was taken to visit refugees who had been involved in the conflict with the Soviet Union. The second lesson that we should learn is that solving problems such as those of Afghanistan is not easy.
	When I visited the refugees, I expected to meet people who were delighted at removing the Russians from Afghanistan and restoring the country to freedom. Instead, they were anxious to tell me that their particular group—it seemed to be one in five—had achieved all the victories, and that the others were useless and should not be supported or financed. The hatred and confusion among the Afghan community reminded me to some extent of Glasgow before the wonderful changes effected a miracle there. We should appreciate that solving the present problems is not easy. For us to think that we can solve them may be creating confusion.
	Only two months ago, a friend of mine was in the United States, staying in a plush hotel. Someone came round with a big plastic bucket, asking whether he would help peace in Ireland. He did not agree to help peace in Ireland, but found out that the money was being sought to assist an organisation called the new IRA or some such thing, which was involved in one of the appalling bombings. Unless we are all prepared to say that none of us and none of our countries would support terrorism in any way, the recent disaster will produce no massive achievement.
	There is an important matter which I hope the Government will clarify. I asked the Prime Minister a question about it, but perhaps he did not consider it important enough for him to give a clear answer. The fact is that Mr. bin Laden may well be seized by the United States, by us or by the forces which we understand are coming from Germany and France. Under our law, or our convention, as we call it, we would not be allowed to hand him over to America for trial, because of the restrictions imposed by the European convention.
	There may be some people who consider that a splendid idea, as it would be unthinkable to pass on a criminal to a country where there is capital punishment. Others may say that it would be shocking not to hand bin Laden over to the United States, as that is where the crime was committed. What is the Government's position? If bin Laden is seized by troops from Britain, would the Government seek some other means of putting him on trial, or would they seek to change our law? It is a simple point, and we are entitled to some clarification.
	There is a need to build support—much is potentially available—in the Muslim countries for a stand against fundamentalism and the terrorism linked to it. From my knowledge of Pakistan and other countries in the middle east, it is clear that there is a huge potential for creating terrorism, unless someone is prepared to lead a crusade against it. More is required than simple statements in which almost every organisation in the world says that the disaster was shocking and shameful. There needs to be a crusade against terrorism in the Muslim community. Many people fear that the war, which I am sure will be effectively handled by Britain, America and all its friends, will simply wipe out one group of terrorists and create many more.
	Finally, could the Government give any indication of the changes that they plan to make in security law in the United Kingdom? I noticed a headline the other day in my favourite paper, The Guardian, "Tories back EU security measures", so I know that there is nothing to worry about, but I should like to know exactly what is being planned.
	I do not want to be difficult, but the danger is that, in a situation such as the present one, on which we are all agreed, we tend simply to try to think what nastier word we can use about the enemy and what more wonderful things we can say about ourselves. I hope that as a result of the recent great tragedy, we will at least accept that some of the responsibility rests with us. If we do not admit that, we are running away from reality.
	There is huge potential for the growth of confusion, terrorism and hatred throughout the world and even in our own country. There are always people who are willing to say that they will help us to achieve our objective. Let us hope that as a result of the disaster, we will all agree that no country will support terrorism in any circumstances, and that we will all fight together for freedom. We must get away from the appalling situation in which countries that are strong and powerful think that they have all the answers for the rest of the world. If we showed some humility and common sense, some good may come out of an appalling situation.

Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the crisis today. Many of my constituents serve in our armed forces. I pray for their safety and for their families at this time.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that the war is not between the west and Islam or between Christianity and Islam. Muslim communities across the UK and Muslim leaders around the world all condemned the terrorist attacks last month. We are all united in our fight against terrorism and want to remove its threat everywhere.
	Yesterday, I visited Annandale street mosque in Edinburgh, the scene of a recent fire attack. I gave the message that the Prime Minister has expressed solidarity and support with Britain's Muslims and condemned acts of hatred against them. That view is shared by all political parties and leaders in Scotland and Britain.
	People advocating violence and religious hatred do not represent anyone, whether they are extremist groups or Muslim individuals. The vast majority will not support such people. They will not succeed. I was encouraged in Edinburgh by the presence of more than 100 members of the Edinburgh Inter-Faith Community to show their solidarity and support for the city's Muslims. The vast majority of people know that Islam is a religion of peace, understanding and tolerance.
	We should be firm on terrorism, but also firm on the underlying causes of terrorism. The Prime Minister outlined his vision of the world in his conference speech, where he emphasised the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the eradication of poverty. For that vision to become reality, we need to address long-standing issues in Palestine and the dispute between India and Pakistan. We need to re-examine our policy of sanctions against Iraq. The Iraqi people have suffered, while Saddam Hussein has been strengthened.
	We must remain united against terrorism. Terrorists and those who support and harbour them must all be brought to justice. To that end, we must develop a proper international framework. An international court should deal with charges against individuals and states accused of terrorism. We must also give serious consideration to the repercussions of military action against Afghanistan. The whole region is facing severe destabilisation. We face the most miserable refugee crisis in history. Seven million people face starvation in Afghanistan, and aid must reach them.
	It is not disrespectful to question America's international policy. If the United States treated everyone equally, it would rule the world not by military might, but by winning hearts and minds. An even-handed, neutral approach in areas of conflict would, in time, replace hostility with genuine affection and respect for the USA. The potential exists to make that change.
	Lessons must be learned from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. We supported the mujaheddin against soviet aggression and armed groups against the invaders. One million lost their lives in the struggle against Russia. The war cost Afghanistan millions of lives, total ruination of the modest economic infrastructure and devastation of its towns and cities. The country had been bombed back to the stone age by the Russians during their 12-year onslaught. With the withdrawal of the Russian forces, the power struggle among different warring groups in Afghanistan degenerated into total chaos.
	When the soviets left, the west also walked away. What has happened in Afghanistan during the past 12 years is the result of the west and the USA turning their backs on both Afghanistan and Pakistan after the destruction of communism. Had we adopted an objective policy based on the long-term interests of the region and helped Afghans to rebuild their devastated country, the Taliban would never have come to power in Afghanistan. An economically viable and developing Afghanistan would never have been a safe haven for terrorists or extremists of any denomination.
	I urge the Government to reach out to moderate, progressive and liberal forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not only should we seek allies among ruling leaders, but it would be of great benefit to build a bond of trust with ordinary people.
	I very much welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that we will not walk away this time when the military action is over. We must also do more to avert the mounting refugee crisis. The huge number of people fleeing Afghanistan will increase rapidly. During the Soviet occupation, the response in humanitarian aid was initially inadequate; when the Russians withdrew, that response became one of disinterest, as civil war raged in Afghanistan. Neighbouring countries have struggled to cope with the millions displaced by conflict. We expect and demand better support from our Government and allies for the millions of people who face hunger and live in terrible conditions.
	The abject poverty facing the refugees represents a huge burden on countries such as Pakistan, where there are currently 2 million to 4 million Afghan refugees. That is underlined by the decline in living standards and widespread poverty among Pakistan's citizens. General Musharraf has taken a bold step in siding with the United States. Measures must be taken to show the people of Pakistan that that decision is in their interests. Recent moves to lift sanctions and extend payments are a start, but on their own, they are nothing.
	The crippling burden of debt must be lifted from Pakistan. Debt should not simply be rescheduled; it should be cut. That is the only way forward. Reduced debt would allow real progress to be made in alleviating poverty for millions of people, and it could help deliver basic education and develop decent health care for the poorest people in Pakistan.
	Without real benefits, support for America will lead to dark days, not only for President Musharraf and his Government, but for all the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Support for terrorism will be strengthened where we fail to lift people out of poverty, deprivation and injustice, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. That is the real fight that we face.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alex Salmond: It is a pleasure to follow two very thoughtful speeches—those of the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar). I have not always agreed with them on every issue, but none the less, their speeches were thoughtful and contained a great deal.
	I start with the assumptions that every hon. Member unreservedly condemns the attacks and the atrocity visited on the United States on 11 September, that we all believe that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network are murderous and that the world would be a much better place if they can be got rid of. The vast majority of us—perhaps we are not unanimous—have, I hope, reluctantly concluded that military action is necessary in the circumstances, but I want to explore what kind of military action should take place and under what auspices. I want to make the case for a specific United Nations imprimatur on the military action that takes place.
	Earlier, the Prime Minister and then the Secretary of State for Defence were asked about article 51 of the United Nations charter. This is not an academic or spurious point—article 51 represents the recognition of the right of self-defence. Under it, the UN requires that states that take action under that right of self-defence—as the American and, presumably, the United Kingdom Governments have done—must make a specific report to the Security Council on why they have done so. As I told the Secretary of State for Defence, the US has done so, and I have a copy of the report that it gave to the UN.

Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: I shall ask a Minister to deal with the point in a second.
	In the report, the US ambassador says:
	"We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organisations and other states".
	The Secretary of State for Defence said that the United Kingdom was covered by that explanation to the Security Council. This would be a very good time for a Minister to intervene to say whether that is the case and whether the statement that I have just read out represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Clare Short: The issue of whether the United Kingdom has written under our article 51 obligations has been raised before, and I can confirm that the acting United Kingdom representative to the UN did so last night. A request has been made that that letter should be made available to the House. I cannot give that assurance now, but I think it highly likely that it will be, and I shall do my best to try to ensure that that is done.

Alex Salmond: A copy of the letter certainly should be available in the Library, and the right hon. Lady should return, perhaps in summing up, to the fact that the US explanation refers to
	"other organisations and other states".
	She will understand the importance of knowing the objectives of military action and those that are supported by the United Kingdom Government.
	The immediate risk that we face is not military. On a military calculation, there is no contest in the immediate future. Cruise missiles are obviously far more effective than small arms and sophisticated aeroplanes are more effective than rudimentary air defence systems. The real risk in the immediate future is not a battle on the plains of Afghanistan; it is the battle for public opinion on the streets of Pakistan, Egypt and Gaza. The risk is that that battle could be lost during the next few days unless the alliance proceeds extremely carefully.
	During last Thursday's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that there is no case in recorded history of
	"terrorism . . . being defeated by military action alone."—[Official Report, 4 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 729.]
	Those are wise words, and I hope that the Government are taking full account of them. There is, of course, a military risk to our armed forces. It is not immediate, but it will exist if ground intervention follows. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of their admiration for our armed forces and given them their grateful thanks for the risks that they take on our behalf, and I happily endorse those comments.
	Of course, as the BBC programme that the Secretary of State for Defence watched told us last night, the history of military interventions in Afghanistan stretches back to Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, and involved the British empire three times and, most recently, the Soviet Union. That history suggests that Afghanistan is a place where countries get in easy and get out bloody. The Soviet Union's forces reached Kabul in 48 hours, and it then took 10 years and 15,000 men to get out again. It does not necessarily follow that that would be the result of ground action in the present circumstances. We are told that the Taliban are deeply unpopular, and I certainly hope that that is the case, given that movement's atrocious track record, but if we are to avoid the impact of what has happened in the past in Afghanistan, we must surely avoid being seen as the target. History also tells us that armies can be greeted with open arms, as the British Army was by the oppressed Catholic population of Londonderry in 1969, but circumstances can change in a few months.
	For the first time, I heard the Prime Minister say something in his statement that I thought represented a recognition that mistakes had been made in the past. He said, "I repeat: we will not walk away from them once the conflict ends, as has happened in the past." His statement contained a recognition, which was requested by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, of the mistakes that had been made in the past, such as the fact that the mujaheddin was financed in the 1980s, then deserted in the early 1990s. We face the current situation because of that inaction in the early 1990s, when Afghanistan was forgotten by the west because it had served its purpose of bleeding the Soviet Union white.
	What is to happen to Afghanistan in future is not an academic question. The Prime Minister made a commitment in his statement today, but the Secretary of State for Defence refuses to answer the legitimate question of whether a UN protectorate, or an interim administration authorised by the UN, is what we have in mind. That should be what we have in mind, and we should explicitly say so because the UN is not designed just to provide humanitarian aid; it is the world authority and its responsibilities go far beyond the supply of humanitarian aid, important though that is.
	I am very much in favour of the Prime Minister's wish to build a new world order—I am up for that. A new world order will, of necessity, be rather better than the world order that we have at present, but I am sure of two things. First, that order must be based on an international authority. It cannot be a pax Americana and it certainly cannot be a pax Britannica or a western authority; it must be a genuine international authority, and that is surely why the UN exists. It has also to be based on moral principles.
	In his speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo and pointed out that 3 million people have died in the Congo because of the civil war that has been conducted in that unhappy country. On 11 September—the very same day that the twin towers were attacked in the United States—there took place in this city under the auspices of Her Majesty's Government an arms fair that sold arms to both sides in the Congo civil war. My point is that if we are to move forward positively from where we have been, we must base our arguments on the foundation of democracy, not hypocrisy, and we must base them on a legitimate world authority that surely is the United Nations.

Martin O'Neill: My memory goes back 10 years to when we were debating the Gulf war and the possibility of action and we had some of the arcane and complex, though not necessarily irrelevant, arguments about the role of the United Nations and whether it should be brought in at every turn. Circumstances have changed considerably since then, but we still support the United States and are seeking to gain the approval of a grand coalition for what we hope to achieve. However, in this instance, we are not dealing with state-sponsored terrorism or aggression of the type that we were dealing with in relation to Iraq and Kuwait.
	The attack on the US targets resulted in citizens from many nations, including our own, being killed and economic havoc has been wreaked. We face all kinds of problems and the denting of confidence will not be felt only in the United States; it is being felt daily in our own constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not present, but I hope that time will be found early next week for a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can hear his assessment of the economic damage that has been done to this country, the area for which he has competence. We may then begin to get an idea of the Government's assessment of the economic problems that might follow these dastardly deeds
	The NATO charter says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and we have signed up to that. We have also taken a proper position with regard to the UN. We could have said that we would do nothing more and try to appoint an international detective force to root out and catch bin Laden. We could have waited on the Taliban after asking them repeatedly to hand him over. If some people had had their way, we might even have waited for the Taliban to be satisfied that there was proof beyond doubt that bin Laden was guilty. However, I do not think that there is now any doubt about his guilt, given the nature of the video that was shown last night. His complicity in the actions is clear and his approval and support for them puts him beyond the pale.
	I applaud the Government's decisiveness in expressing our support for the United States—the speed and unqualified nature of the backing that we gave at the outset. Let us not forget that less than two months ago, Time magazine posted a "Colin Powell missing" notice on its front page. The US Secretary of State seemed to be missing from the central policy-making functions of the Bush Administration. The senior foreign policy member of that Administration had been isolated by the hawks led by the Vice-President and the Secretary of Defence. Indeed, it was suggested that the President, at that stage, had been reduced to the role of a mere mouthpiece for the US military-industrial complex.
	The speed with which our Government moved in support of our American allies showed that the Americans were not alone and could be brought back from the isolationist position into which they had got themselves in the late summer of this year. That meant that, for the first time in a long time, there was a moderating influence on the US Administration.
	I am not sure whether the coalition will achieve all its objectives in a very short time. We will certainly not eradicate terrorism immediately, but we have to start somewhere. The elimination of the command and control systems—such as they are in Afghanistan—and of air defence systems is important, but it is dangerous to talk about being sucked into a bigger confrontation.
	The example of the Russians is all too clear, but the tolerance of the American people for any major US commitment will be difficult to establish even if that were desirable. The generation who would take such decisions—those in Congress—either served or sought not to serve in Vietnam. That was a defining experience in the body politic of the United States and people do not want to repeat it. Therefore, it is essential that we achieve our objectives with all speed. We must do so to ensure that we achieve the military outcome of eradicating the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan and cutting it down to size so that it is controllable elsewhere.
	People have expressed great pride in the quality of the forces that we have placed at the disposal of the coalition, but we must remember that the people who advise the Government are far closer to the young men involved than any of us can imagine. Those young men may not be the sons of the senior officers, but those officers take responsibility for them. No one is less willing to sacrifice armed strength than the military itself. Commanders view the young men whom they have trained as part of the family.
	Our experience in the Gulf and that of the US in Vietnam show that military might and incisiveness are important. We speak about aid and military power going together, but we must ensure that they are not confused. We must ensure that the people who have responsibility for distributing aid through the various channels remain untainted by what will be a nasty and dirty war. War is not a clean business and the people who are sent there on our behalf will do deeds that we would not like them to, but they will think that they are necessary to achieve the objectives that we consider to be legitimate and desirable at this time. If we can do that and we can establish a settlement in Afghanistan of the kind that we have spoken about, the efforts of those people will not be in vain. They will be a source of national pride and of satisfaction for all those who are able to take part.

Ian Taylor: The House has been recalled not just to show our support for the Government—that is inevitable, because our troops are in action and it would be wrong to do anything other than support what the Government are doing—but to discover the nuances behind why we support the Government. To that extent, I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar). It provided another dimension. This is a complex issue in which there are bound to be different perspectives even if we support what has happened tonight and last night and what will inevitably take place on many other nights when our forces are committed to action.
	There is also no doubt that those on both sides of the House have given credit to the Prime Minister for what, from time to time, has been the brilliant way in which he has galvanised an international coalition and influenced the United States. He is performing a high-wire act, and it is in the national interest that he does not fall off. It is a high wire act because so many things are at stake.
	At least at the beginning, the American Administration have shown a degree of caution about which some of their friends—I count myself as one—are rather surprised. Like the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), I have had meetings with Colin Powell. I had three meetings with him over several years—they left a greater impression on me than I fear I left on him. Nevertheless, he is a man of considerable judgment and his voice has been heard. It is quite possible that his voice has been heard more clearly because of the support that our Prime Minister gave to those in Washington who realised that this had to be an occasion on which America tried to build a global coalition rather than just taking action. Interestingly, that coalition has also involved the United Nations, which, although it is in New York, is not an organisation for which the American Administration have had much fondness. This time, it appears that we are all working in a particular way.
	I also give credit to the Prime Minister for working closely within the European Union. This was a test for the European Union and, so far, it has succeeded: there is a common policy. Of course, not every member of the EU reacts in the same way. That would be surprising, as some countries are neutral and others are NATO members. The important point is that each supports what the others are doing. We heard today that several other members, including Italy, France and Germany, are likely to be involved in military action, or will at least enable our troops to move into the current theatre of war by taking our place in Macedonia, as the Germans will do.
	That is vital for us because it shows once again that we are a bridge to Washington because we are America's gateway to Europe. We are stronger in our influence in Washington when we are seen to be taking a leading role within the EU. The importance of the transatlantic alliance is that it provides a diversity, enabling us to build outwards and to embrace countries where other EU member states have more influence than we might have.
	The involvement of the Russians is crucial. During the Kosovo conflict, we often raised the question of the Russian reaction. On this occasion, not least because of the events in Chechnya, Moscow is very much on-side in attempting to find a solution to what has been going on in Afghanistan. That brings me to my second key area of interest: what is going on in Afghanistan and to what extent are we, at this stage, capable of defining our objectives?
	It would be dangerous, although tempting, to try to say that this is a crusade against terrorism. It would be tempting but wrong, because terrorism is defined in many different ways. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; one alliance formed against a particular sort of terrorism can disintegrate rapidly once the focus is shifted. Bin Laden himself understood that only too well when he tried last night to create dissension by pointing to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Shortly after the Gulf war I was on the west bank and I talked to both Israelis and Palestinians. We must redouble our efforts to help resolve that continuing crisis, but it must not shift our focus from what we are attempting to do now, which is to snuff out a vicious terrorist group based in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban.
	Therefore, as we stand in the House this evening our objectives are to undermine the Taliban and remove their ability to operate successfully and to provide succour to bin Laden and his groups. Real tensions will be created within the alliance that we have created once we move from the initial air strikes to on-the-ground operations. I hope that all the efforts that we have made can be redoubled to ensure that Pakistan and others are given as much support as possible, because those tensions will arise.
	There is another reason why we must not turn this into a great crusade to spread freedom around the world. When one has a clear enemy, as we have in the current battle against bin Laden and his groups, we must sometimes choose allies who themselves do not have perfect records. I do not wish to name names this evening—that would not be constructive to the overall effort—but we must understand that we have a clear task to protect ourselves from terrorists who want completely to undermine our society. We must not confuse it with battles that will definitely continue for a long time, which affect India, Pakistan, the middle east and the internal politics of Saudi Arabia. We may have to deal with those issues in a wider context, but we must not distract ourselves by dealing with them tonight, or we shall lose the full force of our activity and our ability to take people with us, both militarily and psychologically.
	I am delighted that the Secretary of State for International Development will respond to the debate because the final issue on which we must focus tonight is the humanitarian effort, which will involve the help of many more countries than will be involved in the military battle. However, it is crucial. The humanitarian effort involves not just dropping food parcels but helping those countries to rebuild themselves so that the tensions that exist within them are mitigated and they can see that the hand of friendship is being held out, even after the original crisis has moved on. As the Prime Minister said, we cannot turn our backs on a country like Afghanistan. That is not to say that we must get involved in nation building, which has failed in the past. We must show the hand of friendship as between the west and the Muslim countries because, in the long term, that is most likely to result in future stability.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate. It is a month since those horrendous events took place in New York and other parts of the United States and I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying that it seems to have been a month in which the Prime Minister has played a constructive and effective role in the policy formulation that has brought us to the present position.
	During that period, the United States and others, including this country, have been able to identify beyond any reasonable doubt those responsible. If anybody in this House or outside had any doubts about that, bin Laden's performance on television yesterday must surely have eliminated them. He is only too pleased to take responsibility for the bombing, and to vaunt it. We have had time to put together a coalition that includes, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, not just the European Union but our Commonwealth friends, Australia and Canada, and, most importantly, the Soviet Union. We have also had time to define the targets—military and other defence installations—and to ensure that nothing else will be attacked. That is as important an outcome as any other.
	The words that the Prime Minister spoke—I believe that he leads the debate on this, as on many other issues—about the religion of Islam, when he described its peaceful and teaching nature, were enormously important in reassuring many Muslims in this country. I say that on behalf of my many Muslim constituents and friends in Coventry. In emphasising the equal importance of the humanitarian aspects of the operation, my right hon. Friend has brought us to a situation where, throughout this country, America, the whole of Europe and much of the Commonwealth, everybody can see that as much as possible has been done. An ultimatum was offered; time was given for its consideration; and it was refused. I believe that there is now widespread acceptance of the inevitable military action and all the awful consequences that we know will flow from that.
	The whole House will agree that, if the policy formulations of the past four weeks have been difficult, now that the military action has begun, and in the dangerous weeks ahead, they will be even more difficult and complex. I should therefore like to put several points to the Government for their consideration both tonight and, perhaps more important, as they make difficult decisions and establish priorities in the weeks ahead.
	The first was addressed most effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) a few moments ago when he referred to a much greater role for the United Nations. The House will be reassured by the fact that the hesitant affirmation that was given initially by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has now been reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in the letter which she has agreed to place in the Library stating that we have complied with article 51. However, it seems to me that we have not been as proactive on the United Nations front as we should have been, or, indeed, as we have been so successfully on other fronts. Now is the time to do that. It is no good waiting any longer. We must envisage the endgame in Afghanistan.
	Another key objective that was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall- Andrews) when the Prime Minister was replying to questions is the establishment of an international court of justice under the auspices of the United Nations, as that will be a key element in the event of the military campaign having a successful outcome.
	I also believe that there will be a continuing role for the United Nations in the event of the successful outcome to which the House is committed and which I am sure will be achieved.
	I now turn to the length and extent of the bombing campaign. Any comparison with what happened in Serbia—or previously in Afghanistan—or with the length of that campaign and the reservations that many of us had should not be taken too far. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) said that Afghanistan was bombed back to the stone age by the Russians and the impression that one gets from the television does not contradict that. Nevertheless, if the initial phases of bombing do not yield the minimum requirements of the campaign—the destruction of bin Laden and the elimination of the al-Qaeda network—the earliest possible commitment of specialist ground troops will become necessary. I am sure that operations are in hand in readiness for that.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is replying to the debate as I should like to say a few words about our humanitarian commitment. The Prime Minister said—and the whole House welcomed it—that it is as important as the military effort and must go hand in hand with it. However, particularly if the bombing is more prolonged than we wish, there will be conflicting priorities. My message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, knowing her powerful influence in Cabinet on these issues, is that if a choice has to be made between the bombing and the supply routes for humanitarian aid getting through, it will be in the interests of the campaign—and of the west—to consider giving priority to the supply routes for humanitarian aid.
	Looking to the future, the Prime Minister said that we will not walk away, and we all welcome that, but we must also realise that there is no indefinite role that British forces or even the Americans can play alone in Afghanistan. That is why I return to my point about the United Nations and say that even now it must be possible to formulate the policy that will follow what I believe will be a successful military campaign. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can keep us informed on the thinking on that, the whole House will be reassured that we face a most successful outcome to this difficult project.

Richard Ottaway: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). I very much agree with what he said about the complexity of the situation. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) who emphasised the role of the Muslim community in this country and the fact that its members will have no truck with terrorism.
	I also found the speech by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) particularly interesting. I have always identified him as a bit of a radical in his party, but when he asked those who oppose the war, "What is the alternative?" he recognised the uncomfortable realisation that there is no alternative.
	Last night's extensive military strikes by the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom forces marked a turning point in the campaign against terrorism which began on 11 September. Diplomacy is coming to an end and I take this opportunity to express my clear support for the Government and congratulate them on their handling of the situation to date. However, I mean no disrespect to them when I say that what has happened up to now has been the easy part. Things will get more difficult, with anxiety and hostility being shown on the national and international stage.
	It is easy for those who have been unaffected by the situation to ask why we are exposing ourselves to the extent that we are. At present, only the British armed forces stand alongside those of the United States, and the possible consequences are obvious. I am well aware that many pledges will be fulfilled, but those are nevertheless the thoughts in drawing rooms the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
	I have no doubt that this is the right and proper place for us to be, but the fear of retaliation in our capital should not be underestimated. Quite rightly, security has been increased and thousands of extra police have been deployed on the streets of London. Representing an outer-London suburb, I am well aware that police have been taken from the suburbs to the centre. Although my constituents are well aware of the importance of protecting the centre, the campaign could go on for weeks or months or even years, so I would be grateful if the Minister replying to the debate could address the issue of policing in the outer London suburbs in that eventuality.
	There is no obvious end to the terrible situation in which we find ourselves. During the Falklands war, the enemy was there for us to see. The task for the armed forces was to recapture the islands. In the Gulf war, the threat was plain and a global coalition pushed Saddam Hussein back into his own country. This time the task is not so simple.
	It is widely stated that our objective is the elimination of terrorism, but such is its unknown quantity and its subversive nature that we will probably never know when or if that objective has been achieved. Last night's targets may have been destroyed, but the perpetrators of the monstrous atrocities of 11 September will filter away into the night. The battle will continue and my instinct is that it will be a long drawn-out affair with serious economic consequences. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that it cannot be addressed by military action alone. In my judgment, the most effective way of countering the global network of terrorism is to follow the money. It is no surprise that the Security Council resolution of 28 September rightly called on all nations to target the funding of terrorist organisations.
	At this immediate time, the destiny of this campaign lies with our armed forces who are again in action tonight. It is a justified action against an organisation that has put itself beyond the rule of law. Nevertheless, the reaction from those who support the Taliban is not encouraging.
	The Muslim world is in turmoil. The situation in Indonesia is tense. The demonstrations in Pakistan put sustained pressure on President Musharraf, whose courage and intellectual analysis of the situation deserves our fullest admiration and support. None the less, the statement made by Osama bin Laden is chilling in its tone. It called on every Muslim to rise up to defend his religion and said that America will not live in peace. There are two striking things about that statement. First, it is the first real admission from Osama bin Laden that he is responsible for the attacks and secondly, he sees the present situation as an attack on his religion. It is no such thing, as the many statements by Muslim leaders in this country and around the world have sought to confirm.
	Mr. bin Laden's statement claims that there will be no peace until the army of the infidels departs from Palestine. It probably came as some surprise to him to find that last night Mr. Yasser Arafat was frantically assuring the United States and this country that he opposes Osama bin Laden and supports the military campaign. Mr. bin Laden represents a narrow aggressive sect and does not speak for Islam.
	The Islamic community of this country lives in peace, participating in our democratic processes and enjoying the economic prosperity that a vigorous country such as ours can obtain. That community is a force for good. I am proud to represent Muslims in my constituency. I am proud of my association with their organisations and of the contribution I made to the establishment of the Ishmaili Jamat Khama in south London. I am even more proud of the people of Croydon who have welcomed its construction.
	We have to improve our relations with the Muslim world. The helpful memo submitted by Zahid Nawaz to the Select Committee on Defence during the last Parliament was almost visionary in its analysis of Islamic thinking and activity. Our knowledge of Islam is minimal. I have no idea whether western policies help or hurt. However, the many questions posed by "Political Islam" will dominate the international agenda for years to come.
	I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development is to reply to the debate. Supplying aid to the millions of Afghan refugees caught up in this ghastly situation is the way we can shore up our credibility with the Muslim world. It is possible that the supply of blankets and food will do more to win the battle than anything else. The dropping of individual rations, medicines, blankets and other items is exactly the humanitarian gesture that we need, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady and her Department on a clear course of action.
	I welcome the change of emphasis announced on Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and her emphasis on a long-term solution to restore the economic stability of Afghanistan. We have never been in a situation like this before, but with the coalition ranged against the Taliban, I would not like to be in their shoes. So far, the Government have got it right and I support them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) will understand if I do not follow his remarks, but he was right to point out that this could be the easy stage. It is helpful that all the parties have given such support to the Government. The support given by the Leader of the Opposition was reiterated today by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). They have provided sterling support to the Prime Minister who has made such a great contribution to taking these matters forward so far.
	The enormity of the situation is hard to comprehend. About 6,000 people lost their lives on 11 September. The fact that the terrorists were able to carry out such atrocities is a terrifying demonstration of the power that a terrorist organisation can wield. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, if the terrorists had had the capacity to kill more innocent US citizens, who could doubt that they would have done so?
	As the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said, if the terrorists had had access to nuclear or chemical weapons, they could have killed many more people. I should like to take this opportunity to appeal to my right hon. Friends to work to step up international efforts to prevent the ingredients for such weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. It is clear that the current security arrangements leave a lot to be desired. I will not elaborate on that, but the Ministry of Defence has issued documents in recent years setting out the problems in that regard.
	The atrocities of 11 September were a dreadful wake-up call. It is true that the world has changed, and from the ashes new alliances are being made. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany and France have pledged forces to the military operation, and the Secretary of State for Defence added to that list earlier today.
	President Bush has said that more than 40 countries in the middle east, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air transit or landing rights, and he said that many more have shared intelligence.
	As hon. Members have said, there is no doubt that it is important for the United Nations to be involved in these matters. If today's alliance is to be sustained—I congratulate Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, on helping to build it—it has to be on the basis of an institution that can underpin it. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, the UN is the only institution that can do that.
	As the weeks and months go by, there are bound to be strains and splits arising within the alliance. The only international institution that is sufficiently recognised and respected to resolve those disputes is the UN. The United Nations Security Council has a military staff committee made up of the five permanent members—the United States, UK, China, France and Russia. Those are the five official nuclear powers. There are, of course, what might be described as unofficial nuclear powers: Pakistan and India come to mind in the current situation, as well as Israel.
	I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to look to the work of the UN in the weeks and months to come because it will have to play a vital role. It will be important in the humanitarian efforts, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will deal with that, but the Security Council and the military committee will also be important.
	As I have said, about 6,000 lives were lost on 11 September, and we should assume that others have been or will be killed during the current military action. A life is a life whether it is in Afghanistan or the United States. The world community must rise to the challenge of international terrorism. Yes, we have to resolve these issues effectively, but I believe that the House is united in its desire to see them resolved in a way that minimises additional suffering and loss of life.

Bob Spink: I have four points to make, but first I pay tribute unreservedly to the British armed forces. The world recognises their unique abilities and bravery.
	The overall war aim must be to remove international terrorism wherever it arises and in whatever guise it comes, not just to remove the al-Qaeda network, which is our initial aim. The priority must be to tackle and remove the threat of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction around the world, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) has just explained. In that way we can make the world a much safer place, and that must be our end product.
	This time we must finish the job, and finish it properly. Throughout history, commanders have made the fundamental error of not prosecuting war to the very end. I believe that the Gulf war 10 years ago was an example of that. I wonder whether those on the Treasury Bench will accept that, at the right time, the theatre should be extended to include Iraq.
	We must make this a just war and we can do that by minimising the risk to innocent civilians rather than minimising the risk to allied forces, unlike our approach in Kosovo. That must be the basic rule of our engagement at all times. We must achieve accurate and highly focused targeting and we must keep our word on delivering international humanitarian aid. In that way we can keep the coalition intact and avoid an escalation into what would be a disastrous holy war.
	The levels of terrorist threat against Britain have increased significantly. Therefore, we must establish sound precautionary measures and increase our vigilance, particularly for the thousands of my constituents who work in the City of London and who must be reassured. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), I should like confirmation that adequate police resources will be available across London. I would also stress that normal life and work in London must go on, as far as possible.
	I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that the target on Canvey Island in my constituency that was hit by the IRA about 20 years ago no longer exists—the installations have been removed. I trust that my constituents can take comfort from that knowledge.
	War is evil, but there are times when we have to perpetrate an evil to remove a greater evil. Our prayers and hopes go with our armed forces, along with our undiluted admiration.

Roger Casale: Beyond the appalling loss of life on 11 September has come the shocking realisation that our confidence in a new world order has been shaken, just as the foundations of the World Trade Centre were razed to the ground. The acts of 11 September were atrocious and barbarous. As many religious leaders of all faiths have said, it was an utterly godless act—an act devoid of any possible justification, but also of any rational meaning.
	On the eve of the second world war the poet Auden wrote, describing the fears of many in the face of the awful destructive power of fascism,
	"Defenceless under the night
	Our world in stupor lies".
	That is not the situation today, but we must not underestimate the enormous challenge before us to make reason and justice prevail.
	Since 11 September, our fears and anxieties have grown and we have been shocked by further reminders and revelations: the chilling revelations about the extent and intentions of the bin Laden network, the reminder of the callous, fanatical nature of the Taliban regime and the evidence and realisation of the appalling scale of the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Afghanistan.
	We want to reassure ourselves and those whom we represent that we can do something about that. For the citizen, our aims will perhaps be modest. We cannot bring back the dead—those who lost their lives in the World Trade Centre. We cannot even restore the unquestioning confidence in the new world order that prevailed before. From the perspective of the citizen, the best that we can perhaps hope for is that life may return to normal at some point—that we can go about our business and our daily lives and make our travel plans and so forth again.
	The international situation will never be the same again. There is a contrast between the heady goals that we have set ourselves in the international community and those that we have set in our own communities. There is an immediate need for managing risk more effectively. We must hold our nerve. We must identify risk and take appropriate action. We must greatly strengthen international solidarity and resolve. International dialogue, at every level—the bilateral level, the European level and in the international institutions of NATO and the United Nations—must be enhanced. That is a continuous process, but we must redouble our efforts and set our sights much higher.
	At the international level, faced with a crisis of this nature and scale, there has been a deficit of leadership, although that is being addressed. Our Prime Minister, on behalf of our country, has demonstrated leadership through dialogue and building coalitions—that is by continuing much of the work in which we were engaged before the crisis. One shows leadership by sharing it—sharing one's vision and bringing others together behind what one has in mind. However, there is still a great need to share leadership more widely. We must involve the UN and NATO more to provide the leadership that is necessary in the face of such a crisis.
	At a local level, we all have a role to play. Indeed, everyone in the country has a role to play in this crisis. Our thoughts are naturally with our armed forces and their families tonight, but we can all play a role in our own communities today. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Wimbledon, Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, offered his services and went out to the Gulf when that war started. I have no intention of doing the same.
	My instinct is that my place is in my community. Wimbledon, in the borough of Merton, has people of many different religions including many of the Muslim faith. I speak this evening on behalf of the ethnic minority centre in my borough and of the Ahmadiya community, which has its headquarters just outside. I also speak on behalf of the many Muslims of different shades of faith within my community, who share our fears and anxieties.
	I have always taken great pride in the diversity of my community and I see that diversity as our greatest strength. The onus is on me and other community leaders to bring the full strength and weight of that diversity to bear, in standing shoulder to shoulder with those of the Muslim faith should there be any reprisals—I hope that that will not happen—as a result of the action that we are taking.
	I support the objectives that have been set out tonight: to eliminate the threat of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network and to replace the Taliban regime.
	In the longer term we must renew our international commitment to a world in which there is a greater measure of social justice, based on compassion and the rediscovery of our common humanity in this adversity, so that the terrible events of 11 September may result in the lasting rededication of our leaders to the entrenchment of peace, justice and human rights throughout the world. As Auden said later in that same poem,
	"We must love one another or die."

Jenny Tonge: Since the terrible events of 11 September, the world has at last been made aware of the terrible plight of the Afghan people after 20 years of war and brutal repression as well as three years of drought. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the abiding images of the past few weeks. For me an abiding image is of a two-year-old too weak to crawl to his mother who was also too ill and weak to take any notice of him. They were both starving and at the point of death.
	There are estimated to be 6 million people—25 per cent. of the population—starving inside Afghanistan and between 3 million and 4 million in terrible conditions in makeshift camps on the borders of Pakistan and Iran. After a three-week temporary cessation of supplies from the United Nations and the World Food Programme aid had begun to flow again. The World Food Programme had planned to reach the target of 56,000 tonnes of food per month being trucked into the country, which would have made a significant impact.
	My suggested option—airlifting food into the area, in particular when winter sets in, or bombing with food in fact—was ruled out as too difficult and imprecise. I still have not received an explanation of how we can—or we are told that we can—precisely target bombs from high altitude but the same cannot be done with food. Perhaps the Secretary of State for International Development will deal with that when she replies.
	Interestingly, the United States of America is now dropping food with bombs—as from last night—which is a practice that will endanger aid agency staff now and in the future. As the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, aid must not be politicised. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees with that.
	It seemed to me that the waiting game strategy combined with food and aid was a brilliant and novel one—keeping up the diplomatic pressure, with the threat of military action in the background, always there ready to go. It might have prevented Pakistan becoming destabilised by floods of refugees, which is what everyone is worried about. It seemed to be softening and breaking up attitudes in the Taliban Government. The Afghan people would have been fed over several weeks and may have loved the west a little more as a consequence.
	While that brilliant strategy was being pursued, an undercover action, perhaps SAS-style, could have attempted to capture Osama bin Laden. I am well aware that there is a huge international network of criminals in his pay, al-Qaeda being one, but he is the inspiration and lead figure for these people, and we know that it is vital that he is captured and brought to justice, as has been said many times in the House.
	Sadly, the waiting strategy has not delivered Osama bin Laden. Last night, we saw the familiar sight of air attacks, this time on the ruins of Kabul and the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. We are assured that civilians will not be targeted, and I entirely believe that, but winter is approaching, which will make any action on the ground difficult. The World Food Programme and the United Nations have from today suspended the trucking of food into Afghanistan indefinitely. The borders are closed, so the people cannot escape.
	I am concerned that hundreds of thousands will die as a result of western action, and that surrounding countries could become destabilised, leading to a wider war. What if the Taliban have no control over bin Laden? What if he, not them, is calling the shots? What will have been achieved? But I am, above all, a pragmatist. The die has been cast. They had their chance. The decision has been taken, I am sure with far better intelligence than I have. Therefore, I support that decision and the action. The Prime Minister is an honest man. I trust him; we all trust him. As has been said many times, our armed services are the finest in the world, and we wish them God speed.
	What diplomatic effort will be expended to get the borders of Pakistan and Iran opened so that terrified people can flee to the camps? Will massive aid—all that is asked for by UNHCR and the World Food Programme—be poured into those camps by the coalition Governments? Can the Secretary of State clarify for me the reasons why a way cannot be found to drop targeted food and medical aid to people inside Afghanistan independently—I stress independently—of the bombing raids? It must come through the United Nations. Can we have an assurance, following the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour party conference, that this country will move more rapidly to increase our expenditure on overseas aid in the future?
	Military action always reminds me of difficult surgical operations. It often happens that when the patient is opened up by the surgeon, it is obvious that surgery is inappropriate or too risky. The good surgeon will close up the patient and seek other ways to effect a cure or help the patient. The bad surgeon, not wishing to lose face, will battle on, take out part of a problem organ, cause severe haemorrhages and leave the patient in a worst state than before, with many problems. I know that in this case, this brilliant coalition of Governments, which has been created hugely due to the efforts of the Prime Minister, will be a good surgeon.

Jonathan R Shaw: I associate myself with the remarks that most hon. Members have made about the armed forces. I have limited experience, having completed the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
	We would be hard pushed to find a more depressed people than that of Afghanistan—a country paralysed economically and internationally, with its people living in fear. I welcome the statement that the Prime Minister made earlier that we would not walk away as we had done before. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) referred to the appalling positions taken by the former Soviet Union and America that left the country in such a desperate state.
	The Prime Minister said that we must win hearts and minds, and that the impetus for change had to come from the Afghan people. How do we assess that impetus? How can 7 million starving people have the impetus to bring about the change that is needed and demonstrate to the west that they want a different country?
	The regime commits public executions. We saw the chilling hanging bodies on the "Panorama" programme last night. We saw the kalashnikovs and the machine guns, used with little regard for human life. How can oppressed people—people in fear—have the impetus to demonstrate that they want change? Perversely, this is the best opportunity to bring about change that the ordinary Afghan people have had in 20 years.
	If we are to maintain the coalition, we must signal some positive outcomes. If we are to capture the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and other Muslim states around the world, there must be some hope. What judgment can an ordinary Afghan form? Ordinary Afghans have only their experience on which to reflect—the experience of 20 years in which Governments have come and gone, to be replaced by the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan have been the pawns, and that is an appalling indictment of the west and the Soviet Union.
	We could say, "That was then and now is now", but we must learn from history. We must create that impetus for change. We must be the enablers. We cannot content ourselves by saying that if the Afghan people say that they want change, we will help them. We must be the enablers. If we do not take their hand and assist them in rebuilding their country, we shall simply return in another 20 years, when there is another bin Laden and the country is still racked by war. We must create hope. We must have an exit strategy that puts in place a United Nations protectorate and brings about stability, with a Government who reflect all ethnic groups, but not groups that do not recognise human rights. We must also learn from history—from the mistakes that were made in Cambodia and East Timor.
	Many olive branches are being held out to America, in an unprecedented way. Who would have thought that Libya and North Korea would offer them? Those branches can be made into bridges in the building of the new world order about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently at the Labour party conference last week.
	The Prime Minister has shown leadership, as has the President of the United States, and I agree that, as was said earlier, it was not what we expected. We did not expect him to show the measured calm that he has, which is a credit to him and his Administration. There have not been knee-jerk reactions, but we want a lasting resolution of the conflict.
	We think of the suffering and atrocities that Afghans have endured. We think of the dehumanisation of women. War widows are not allowed to be educated or to work, so they must beg on the streets. That is the Taliban. It is not enough simply to remove bin Laden and his associates; far more than that is required. As the Prime Minister said, we will not walk away, for the impetus must be created by us and the wider alliance.
	As the military action unfolds, we must prepare for attacks. Given the sophisticated nature of bin Laden's operation and the detailed planning that was involved in the attacks on America, it is inconceivable that there will not be some sort of follow-up. Bin Laden is not going to isolate himself in his cave and await the arrival of the British and United States military to make his last stand. We know that we are dealing with a far more sophisticated evil than that. He will try to ensure that there are consequences for Israel, the United Kingdom and America. I think that he will target his resources on fracturing the very fragile alliance that we have made with the Muslim states.
	Human instinct is such that we most value our possessions when we believe that a person or a force is trying to deny them to us. The attacks on America were an attempt to deny freedom and democracy.
	We send our best wishes to our armed forces. Our prayers are with them as they stand up for democracy. However, let us not forget that the majority of the Afghan people would be much better off if they could simply lead a life without fear and torture. It cannot be left to them to create the impetus for change.

David Cameron: Many right hon. and hon. Members have paid tribute to our armed forces. RAF Brize Norton in my constituency is one of the RAF's largest and longest-standing bases. I was there with the base commander and some of his team a week ago. With its fleet of VC10s, Tristars, and now C17s, Brize provides vital transport and air-to-air refuelling services. The Tactical Communications Wing supports operations by British armed forces around the world.
	Many of my constituents will have been working around the clock on the current operations. Their dedication and professionalism, which I saw at first hand, enable our forces to operate overseas, in distant oceans and in faraway lands. They are magnificent people who deserve our support.
	Today, therefore, my thoughts—like those of many people—are with those service men and women and their families. I believe that the House owes it to them to say clearly and unequivocally that what they are doing is right. Hon. Members must explain why it must be done. We must explain—as so many hon. Members have done in this debate—why there simply is no other way. The Prime Minister has played a tremendous role in that regard. He has carried people with him. He has spoken for his country.
	The point is summarised by what the media sometimes like to call "TINA"—there is no alternative. The point is that to do nothing would be infinitely more dangerous. At heart, the action that we are taking with the Americans is not about vengeance. It is not even merely about seeking to bring to justice those who perpetrated the dreadful acts in New York. It is an act of national self-defence. It is to prevent what happened from happening again, either here or anywhere else. We know that anything less than a full response simply will not work. That has been tried before, following the bombings of the east African embassies and the attack, in the Gulf, on the USS Cole.
	We also know that the organisation that destroyed the World Trade Centre wants to do very much more, and far worse things. One can reach no other conclusion from reading bin Laden's statements or watching the chilling video that many of us saw last night. No country is safe while those people are at large.
	I therefore believe that our message to our service men and women should be, "What you are doing to combat terrorism is not an attack on a foreign country, but an act to defend freedom and security in your own country. It is every bit as justified as the fight against Nazism in the 1940s. We are proud of what you are doing in our name."
	We also owe it to those across the country who are worried about the allied action to try to answer their concerns. Like other hon. Members, I have had very many letters raising questions. How can we take action and avoid civilian casualties? How can we fight an enemy we cannot see? What about the causes of terror? Will not action cause a humanitarian crisis, perhaps with far worse effects than those of the events in New York and Washington?
	We must not avoid those questions. They must be confronted and answered, and I believe that we must be frank in doing so. Casualties cannot be avoided in every circumstance in a mission to seek and destroy terror camps and terrorists who are aided and abetted by a brutal regime. There will be casualties, but to accept that as a counsel of despair and do nothing would mean only more innocent casualties.
	Clearly the allies have tried to pick legitimate targets. Even President Bush's detractors admitted in last week's debate and today that they have been impressed, as have we all, with the time and the thought that has gone into the allied response. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made that point, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), very powerfully.
	Fighting an enemy we cannot see means that the campaign will be far longer and perhaps far more frustrating than a conventional war, but given the nature of the aggressor it is, if anything, even more essential that we fight and win.
	The argument about examining the causes of terror is where some people's thinking becomes decidedly woolly. What possible cause and what possible issue could justify what was done in New York and Washington on 11 September? To understand all, even if we could in this case, would not be to forgive all. It would not even enable us to forgive some of what was done.
	Some commentators, in their need to find a rational motive for what was done, fall into the mistake of believing that there are, in turn, rational steps that could be taken to make these people go away. There are not. The aim of al-Qaeda is the destruction of Israel, the denial of democracy and the humiliation of the United States and its allies. Even if the international community wanted to make concessions, there is none that could be made to put a stop to these people.
	We owe it to people to be frank about what we are involved in. It has been said many times today, not least by the Prime Minister, that we are in this for the long haul. That is absolutely right. Even if our military action achieves quick results—and let us hope and pray that it does—we cannot walk away from what Afghanistan has become. Just as America and its allies helped to rebuild Germany and Japan after the second world war, so we must dedicate ourselves to bringing stability and security to this desperate part of the world.
	Clearly the humanitarian crisis that was already taking place in Afghanistan has become worse. As military action escalates, it will probably deteriorate further. Of course the allies must do all that they can now to help to feed the hungry and give shelter to those fleeing the country, but the war aims of closing down the terror camps and crippling bin Laden, his network and his Taliban hosts must be pursued. It is hard to imagine any proper solution to Afghanistan's humanitarian crisis that involves a Taliban Government still in power in Kabul at the end of all this. I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development deals with that point in her summing up.
	Men and women such as my constituents at Brize Norton should be sent into dangerous combat only if our country's leaders are prepared to back them all the way. On the evidence of all that we have heard, I believe that they are, and that is the point. After 11 September, we have a duty not only to act, but to see this right through to the conclusion. 9.48 pm

David Lammy: I begin by giving thought to those of my constituents and others around the world who fear for the safety of their loved ones today and, of course, to our armed forces, whose members come from every constituency in the country. Although the military action taken by American and British forces in Afghanistan over the past 24 hours explicitly avoided innocent Afghans, those people will naturally be agonising over the safety of their friends and family.
	I heard one commentator suggest that the next generation is confronting the sins of its fathers and mothers. Well, I belong to that generation which has lived without war, or at least without a war that has hurt us directly. For that generation, multiculturalism and internationalism are more than just hamburgers, samosas, saris and steel drums. Our touchstones, including the music, television and films that we enjoy and the values, good and bad, that we cherish, are overwhelmingly American. I am grateful to the United States for the education that I received at one of its best universities.
	We are also, however, a generation that listens to world music and travels to the developing world. We are influenced by Comic Relief and Live Aid and we have friends and colleagues who are black, Asian, Turkish, Serb and Croat. We are more at ease with the realities of the world and the responsibilities tied to globalisation. I see Opposition Members considering whether to challenge the claim that they have friends who are Serb, Asian and Croat.
	Now, suddenly, our way of life is under attack. A plane is no longer a dull, convenient way to get to the Spanish seaside. A trip on the underground to London's west end suddenly carries more risks than the possibility of getting one's wallet stolen. Foreign neighbours suddenly arouse suspicion in a way that makes us feel ashamed. Clearly, we are a generation that has lived without war, and in these times we look for leadership. We are comforted by the fact that our Prime Minister was the first on the international stage to caution the need for measured calm and to talk about an international coalition.
	As the youngest Member of Parliament, I have received many letters from young people all over Great Britain. Those people were prominent in this year's general election mostly because of their absence. They have a new-found interest in world politics, United States foreign policy and the tenets of Islam. As Britain is America's closest ally, many of them fear for their own lives. They are driven by a need to understand why people might despise us so completely that they want to kill us. Perhaps we have been lulled into a false sense of security since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of apartheid. These events challenge our very being.
	Young people want answers to fundamental questions. When is it right forcibly to challenge the injustices taking place in a foreign country? What rights are indispensable and what rights are worth sacrificing to prevent a greater evil? What balance of power exists in the world today? Have we contributed to, or even created, some of its injustices? How must we act now to create a more equal world, one in which a life lost in the west has the same importance as one lost in the east? Young people want to know why we, the west, armed Osama bin Laden and the Taliban some years ago, when they behaved so reprehensibly then. Above all, they insist that the international coalition does not create for us new friends who become tomorrow's enemies.
	In Tottenham, we are small in number but we have a world reach. Just as in New York, people come from the far corners of the earth to live there. We have residents not only from Afghanistan but from each of its neighbouring countries. We welcome the Prime Minister's clear and consistent declaration that this is not a war against Islam and his continued support for British Muslims, but in Tottenham we must take a few steps further.
	In this corner of north London, where 166 languages are spoken, our microcosm is so clearly an important part of this country's future and it offers lessons to the world. Whether in Tottenham, Kabul or the Congo, whether in the developing world or the inner cities of the west, we must share more than our diversity and social exclusion. Our international community brings with it the knowledge of countries throughout the world. Many of my constituents come from the most fragile nations on earth, which are sometimes ravaged by violence and often have problems beyond human comprehension. I welcome those people and want them to succeed here. I want them to feel that they live in a country that has done right by their part of the world. There are historic reasons why the Afghan people are suspicious of western involvement in their country, as we are well aware. If we are to be involved again, we must do better this time.
	My constituents hear what happens in their country of origin more quickly than do readers of The Times or The Guardian. I understand that six correspondents with the World Service of the BBC speak to Afghanistan every day, and we applaud the good work that they do. However, one could multiply that figure by 100 and not get even close to the number of Afghans living in Tottenham who speak to their loved ones every day. That contact should not be underestimated, as those people could be a great asset to our country. However, if the force being used is not justified, proportionate and well directed, my constituents will know that too.

Mark Hoban: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. Fareham, like other constituencies along the south coast of Hampshire, is home to many of the service personnel currently taking part in exercises in Oman. Indeed, one of the military medical units based at the Royal Hospital Haslar in the neighbouring constituency of Gosport is in Oman at the moment.
	My thoughts are with our service men and women abroad, and with their families here at home. Tonight, they are wondering what role they or their loved ones will play in the conflict as it unfolds over the next few weeks and months. We are right to offer them our full support, and they are right to ask us some questions. Are the objectives of our exercise clear? After the debates tonight and last week, I believe that they are.
	Our armed forces and their families know that we support them fully, and that we have learned some lessons from 11 September. They know too that the Secretary of State for Defence is looking to add another chapter to the strategic defence review concerning the lessons that must be learned from asymmetric warfare to ensure that our troops are properly prepared in the future.
	However, although times such as these make us properly value our armed forces who serve our country, we should also think of the times when we do not value them. Many members of the armed forces and their families are worried about communication. How frequently can those abroad speak to their families at home? How often can families speak to loved ones on board ship or stationed at a military base? I hope that the Government will consider whether communication opportunities should be made more regular and frequent, as that would reassure service personnel on exercise or operational duty abroad, and their families who remain in this country.
	We must also consider whether our armed forces are being over-stretched. I often hear complaints from service families, who tell me of too much time spent away from the home base or the port. We must remember the welfare of our service personnel, of whom we ask so much. We demand their loyalty, dedication and commitment, but we should, in return, be mindful of their welfare, and of the need to maintain morale and retain the troops who serve us.
	There is another pillar to the international response, over and above the military reaction. That is the humanitarian response, to which hon. Members have alluded already. I was pleased that, last night, humanitarian aid was dropped alongside the bombs. That is vital, for three reasons.
	First, the humanitarian aid represents the compassionate response of this country and our allies to the suffering of those Afghan people forced by drought to leave their homeland. Secondly, it shows the Afghan people that our quarrel is not with them but with their rulers and those whom they harbour. Our quarrel is with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
	The third message that the humanitarian aid sends is very clear. It shows the wider global community that the action is not about revenge. It is being undertaken in the interests of the Afghan people. We have a clear objective to help them, as well to safeguard our freedom. However, our humanitarian aid should not stop when the military campaign stops—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until midnight.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Mark Hoban: Humanitarian aid should not stop when the conflict ends. Thriving on discord and disunity is a hallmark of Osama bin Laden's activities. His first base was in the Sudan, when that country was plagued by civil war. His second base is in Afghanistan, which is also plagued by civil war. We must ensure that, when the military action is over, we do not recreate the conditions that allowed him to thrive. The aid must continue, as a carrot to encourage the parties to form a broadly based Government, and as a stick to ensure that, once at the table, they remain there.
	The fight will not be easy; it will not be a short haul. We cannot tell our service personnel and their families the duration of the campaign. I am worried about the stability of the international coalition over a long haul. All credit must go to President Bush and the Prime Minister for their work in bringing the coalition together, but it is important to ensure that it is not riven by the discord and disunity that allows bin Laden to thrive. However, we should not allow our hands to be stayed by those who do not have the stomach for the fight, or those who are nervous about the outcome.
	We owe it to the people who lost their lives on 11 September and those who, in the next weeks and months, will fight for our enduring freedom, to remain resolved to defeat Osama bin Laden, replace the Taliban regime and ensure that the world is again a safer place.

Andrew Miller: It would be appropriate to begin by giving some information that is especially relevant to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). Last week, I was privileged to be in Oman, watching Exercise Saif Sareea. I spoke to many of our military personnel—the medical and catering staff at the bases and those in the field, undertaking the exercise—to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Many of those on our vessels come from places that are not a million miles from his constituency.
	The exercise was planned two years ago and is undertaken in partnership with Omani military forces. It is a joint exercise to measure the capability of joint rapid reaction forces. Several important points have emerged, not least the coincidence of the exercise's proximity to Afghanistan. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that although nothing is ever perfect in such huge logistical challenges, our personnel clearly acknowledge that the welfare package has improved dramatically, especially provision for telephoning home.
	Like my colleagues from all parties who were present, I intend to set down my thoughts in detail to ensure that we learn lessons. We can always learn lessons; that is the point of an exercise on such a scale. The morale of the troops and our Navy and Air Force personnel has undoubtedly been helped by the improved welfare package.
	Many of the personnel to whom I spoke recognise that over the next few months their role may change, for obvious reasons—the purpose of the debate. They recognise their responsibility, and during the debate the House has rightly paid tribute to their bravery, dedication, commitment and professionalism. I know that reports of our debate will be welcomed by our forces in Oman and throughout the world.
	I shall comment on the role of the media over the past few weeks. In Afghanistan the media have no real freedom at all. I do not suppose that the television station had a great deal of choice but to broadcast bin Laden's outrageous statement last night. That contrasts starkly with the freedom of the media in this country and in the free world. There is a sharp distinction between the freedoms and the kind of society that we enjoy, and the terrible situation facing Afghan people. However, we had a problem at the outset.
	My plea to the media is to think carefully about broadcasting before some of our troops' families at home know what is happening. The situation needs handling with great care. The media were rightly reporting on the movement of ships and forces in the Omani exercise, but they construed it as an operation in preparation for a direct attack on Afghanistan. Unfortunately, that put fear into the families back home. In the context of improving morale, the media could think carefully about how they disseminate information. Nevertheless, I want their freedom, which the entire House values, to continue in our society.
	Much has been said about the scale of the atrocity and the type of action that we have undertaken. The selection of targets was clearly meticulous. The objective was to damage, disrupt and destroy the al-Qaeda network. It would be foolish to speak here about detailed tactics. As many hon. Members have acknowledged, those are matters that we must entrust to our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, in liaison with their opposite numbers in the coalition, but as has been said, there are other matters about which we can speak openly and freely, and demands that we, as a nation that believes in openness and freedom, can make for the longer-term.
	One such demand is that aid should be delivered. It would be a tragedy if the efforts that we have already made were not followed through. I understand that an additional £36 million has been committed over and above existing funds, and that must continue. We must make sure that food and aid is delivered. As the winter approaches in Afghanistan, the conditions in the country and the surrounding camps will be horrendous. We must not underestimate the scale of that potential tragedy.
	Assets need to be frozen. We need to push harder in the anti-drugs war. We need to recognise the success that we have had in partnership with other navies—for example, in the West Indies. Our West Indies guard ship has done a tremendous job for many years. Let such action be multiplied throughout the coalition to ensure that other sources of heroin, especially Afghanistan, are frozen out. That also includes an attack on the moneys held in accounts in this country.
	Finally, we need to ensure that the relationship with Muslims in this country is sustained for the future.

George Osborne: When I spoke in the debate that was held just three days after the appalling attacks in New York and Washington, I said that we had a duty to support the United States and show that America was not alone in its fight against the enemies of civilisation. Four weeks later, the full measure of that support can be seen in the skies over Afghanistan, and like many other hon. Members I pray tonight for the safety of our pilots, our submariners, our sailors and our soldiers as they go about their difficult job.
	That it has taken four weeks to respond to the heinous crime of 11 September is, as many hon. Members have said today, a tribute to the thoughtfulness, strength and patience of the coalition. There were many who, misjudging the character of the American President, expected the US to lash out in anger within days of the attack, to bomb indiscriminately and to assuage the anger of the American people with a bloodbath on the streets of Kabul. Thankfully, the American President is a great deal more intelligent and more courageous than many people have given him credit for.
	If the Americans had lashed out, we would have achieved very little, other than to satisfy the basest of urges for revenge. Indeed, we would have created 10,000 bin Ladens, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) warned in his powerful speech on 14 September. Instead, by acting in a measured and determined way—using the rapier rather than the blunderbuss—the coalition has correctly judged the mood of the people whom I represent and that of the people of this country.
	This much is clear from every conversation that I have had and every letter that I have received from my constituents since 11 September: they want the perpetrators of the outrages, and those who harbour them, brought to book for what they have done, but they do not want innocent Afghans to be slaughtered. They want peace and security in the middle east and central Asia so that they can go about their lives here in Britain without fear of future terrorist attacks. They do not want us to sow the seeds of decades of turmoil, unrest and fear. As one of my constituents, Mrs. Sellers, said simply in a letter to me:
	"There must be justice, not revenge."
	The action taking place tonight does, indeed, represent justice, rather than revenge.
	In the time remaining to me, I should like to touch on two more specific issues—one immediate, the other long term. The first, immediate issue is that of Pakistan. The support of Pakistan is obviously crucial to the military and diplomatic success of the campaign that we are fighting. Of all the countries involved in the coalition, it is the most vulnerable to attack from so-called Islamic fundamentalists and, as the riots in Quetta and elsewhere show, its Government have taken a big risk in supporting the United States.
	To a large extent, of course, the Pakistani Government are reaping their own whirlwind, for until 11 September they were the Taliban's main external backer. They have actively sponsored terrorist organisations that operate in Kashmir, which have committed terrible atrocities—and, of course, President Musharraf only came to power by military coup. In other words, Pakistan is not what one might call the ideal partner in what the Government persist in calling an ethical foreign policy, but we are not always able to choose ideal allies in our foreign policy.
	Several Members have said tonight and in recent weeks that we and the Americans have, in our time, funded and armed some of the very Afghan groups that we are now fighting to destroy. We should not be particularly embarrassed about that because it happened in the days of the cold war when we were fighting the Soviet Union and the prime objective of British foreign policy was to defeat the Soviet Union, and we were prepared to use whatever means we could to achieve that end.
	Now defeating international terrorism is a prime foreign policy objective, and, as George Bush says, either Governments are with us or they are with the terrorists. Pakistan has not hesitated to support us, so we should support it in return. Therefore, I very much welcome the Prime Minister's visit last week to show our visible support for the Pakistani Government. They need that support because there could be no greater catastrophe for the civilised world than if the Government of Pakistan, with their nuclear arsenal, were to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists.
	The second issue that I briefly wish to mention is the much longer-term one of ballistic missile defence. Virtually nothing has been said about missile defence since the events of four weeks ago, but surely the ruins of downtown Manhattan are grim evidence of why we should try to develop a defensive missile shield as soon as is technologically possible.
	Before 11 September, there was a great debate developing—at its liveliest on the Labour Benches—about whether ballistic missile defence was a vital necessity or a threat to global peace. Those against ballistic missile defence rejected as implausible the argument that a rogue state or terrorist organisation might one day get its hands on a ballistic missile and fire it at a western country. Surely no one can now doubt that this is indeed a great risk.

Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that if it was not possible for the mightiest superpower in the world to shoot down four 747 aircraft at 20 minutes' notice when it knew from mobile phones where those aircraft were and that they were targeted at important buildings, the chances of it shooting down a missile of which it has received no warning in mid-air at 20 seconds' notice are highly improbable?

George Osborne: I am not a military expert, but I would have thought that the difficult decision to use a fighter plane to shoot down a fully passenger-laden aircraft is of a completely different order of magnitude and is a completely different technological problem from deciding to shoot a missile out of the air with a ballistic missile defence system. They are completely different technological issues. The type of people who fly planes into skyscrapers are the type of people who can fire ballistic missiles at us.

Paul Keetch: One of the arguments that some people moot against ballistic missile defence is that if people can fly aircraft into towers and achieve such devastating consequences, they do not need to fire ballistic missiles. If America had had NMD, how does the hon. Gentleman believe it could have stopped the appalling tragic events of 11 September?

George Osborne: My point is that although those people used planes this time, they might use ballistic missiles the next time if they get their hands on them. If we are really saying that we will not take the decision now to try to build a defensive ballistic missile system and, in five or 10 years' time, someone gets their hands on a ballistic missile and fires it at one of the great cities of the world—perhaps the one in which we are standing—will we not then be saying that we were extremely neglectful and extremely foolish not to attempt to build such a system?
	The Government say that the war on terrorism must assume many forms and will take many years. Military action tonight is one of those forms, but developing a ballistic system is another.

Jim Knight: I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), and I look forward to future debates on missile defence. However, I shall steer well clear of that subject now.
	The past four weeks have been truly remarkable, memorable and, obviously, highly regrettable and traumatic. As the world has struggled to comprehend the magnitude of the worst terrorist attack in history, all Members of Parliament have been asked to comment on and sum up our feelings throughout these weeks. That has been difficult enough as the media has filled our newspapers, television screens and our thoughts with speculation and anticipation as to how the world should react. Now that the military response has begun, a new round of comment and reflection has also begun, and it is no less challenging.
	The most important starting point for us now is whether military action in itself has been justified. I have every respect for pacifism and for those who argue that military force will antagonise and create martyrs. There is nothing wrong with, or unpatriotic about, such views, but I hope that they are proved wrong. There is a time for dialogue and for compromise, but there is also a time for action.
	The current situation demands considered, targeted action under the authority of the UN mandate and article 5 of the NATO treaty, and with as broad a coalition of support as possible. Dialogue and compromise are the right response where there may be reason, but how can we reason with people who are prepared to murder up to 7,000 innocent civilians? How can we reason with a cult that is prepared to die a glorious death in the service of its cause? How can we reason with a regime that, as we saw on "Panorama" last night, revels in the public execution of its women?
	I am convinced that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda organisation are a mutually dependent alliance; that, together, they are responsible for 90 per cent. of the heroin smuggled into this country, which causes so much misery and crime in the UK; and that al-Qaeda killed 18 US soldiers in Somalia in 1993, 224 in east Africa in 1998, and 17 members of USS Cole's crew last year. I am convinced that they have sought to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons and would not hesitate to use them in Europe or north America against civilian targets if they had the capability.
	There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Taliban and al-Qaeda present a real threat to this country's security, as well as to that of our neighbours and allies. The best way to defend against such a threat is to destroy the organisation itself. Military action has been inevitable and must be supported throughout.
	Some may argue that we cannot destroy the terrorist threat and that attempting to do so only increases the risk of further terrorist attacks. Clearly, we must be mindful of that potential outcome. We must work actively with as many partners as possible around the world to share intelligence and co-ordinate action to destroy terrorist capability wherever it is found. To do nothing is simply not an option if we want to claim to be defending our own people.
	This morning, Sir Alan, I opened—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make just a small point? The hon. Gentleman is catching the bad habit of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I must be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Jim Knight: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This morning, I opened the Lawrence of Arabia trail in my constituency. A beautiful 6-mile walk through some delightful Dorset countryside links his house to where he died and his grave in Moreton. Along the way one is reminded of the achievements of that remarkable man. In many ways, Lawrence provides a role model for us today. His legend is that of a man who spent time living with and trying to understand the Arabs, who were on the point of revolt against their Turkish rulers. He used that understanding to build an effective liaison between the British military and the Arabs to secure crucial victories in almost impossible terrain. Later, Lawrence campaigned for the Arabs' self-determination and for them as a people, not just a military ally.
	We need the same understanding in a similar situation. We need to work in harmony with our Arab friends, both diplomatically and, where appropriate, on the ground. I am proud of what the Government have achieved already in doing what they can to broaden the coalition. They are right to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States. As a true friend to the Americans, I am proud that our Government's voice of patience and pragmatism has been heard in the White House.
	Who would have thought on 11 September that it would take almost three weeks before an alliance with the support of the whole of the civilised world would respond? Who would have thought that, when the time came, missiles would be accompanied by food and medical aid? Who would have thought that such care would be taken to work with Pakistan and Iraq in helping with the long-established refugee crisis? Even now, as we share deep concern at the military action in which we are engaged, we must retain our pride in the role that Britain has played in laying the foundation for a measured and rational response.
	This morning I spent some time with members of the Royal Armoured Corps in Bovington, as I did on Thursday night after the debate in this House. The mood was uncertain but thoroughly professional. I spoke with officers who had commanded soldiers in Bosnia knowing the real risks to the lives of their men of sending them into battle. Our troops are ready, trained and professional. The officers who lead them are not gung-ho, jingoistic boys with toys; they are acutely aware of the responsibilities that they bear and are making decisions that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
	Our armed forces are now in action to protect our security and destroy the capability of these terrorists to strike again. They are fighting an enemy who cares nothing for civilian life. By contrast, our armed forces are taking whatever care they can to protect civilian life and assist the innocent Afghan people with food and medical aid.
	I fully support this action and my thoughts are very much with our armed forces who are serving our country at this time, but I must quickly voice two concerns. First, I am concerned that if action continues over a significant length of time it will impossibly overstretch our armed forces. The time I spent during the recess with service men and women has shown me on every occasion that they are overstretched. Our service men and women are the best trained in the world and will do the job that they are trained to do, but they are also human. They cannot punch above their weight for ever and we must do our best to support properly the armed services' greatest resource—the people.
	My second concern is the economy. These are uncertain times. A close member of my family working here in London was made redundant last week. Others close to me fear the same. Uncertainty leads to a lack of confidence and hesitancy among decision makers. This is clearly affecting industries beyond the obvious aviation and tourism casualties of the crisis. At the same time I am hugely encouraged by the capacity of the vast majority in my constituency to carry on regardless. Businesses are still doing well in many places. I believe that the economic fundamentals are right, but I would value some debate on how to encourage confidence in the City and increased economic stability so that the terrorists who have killed so many do not also succeed in damaging thousands of livelihoods.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker as I had the privilege to speak in last week's debate. So tonight I shall address only one issue.
	In the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) he said that Osama bin Laden did not represent the views of the Muslim world and he was absolutely right. However, this morning we learned that Osama bin Laden is winning the propaganda battle throughout the Arab world, particularly and dangerously in Saudi Arabia.
	The Secretary of State for Defence, in his well-reasoned speech, spoke of the obligation imposed on all states to suppress terrorism which is mentioned in United Nations resolution 1373. To my mind, that obligation should include the withdrawal of the oxygen of publicity from the terrorists themselves. I am picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) when he spoke about the media. I am thinking in particular about the Al-Jazeera TV channel based in the state of Qatar. I would urge the Government most strongly to use whatever influence they have at the United Nations and elsewhere to ask the Government of Qatar and all media organisations to deny the terrorists the oxygen of publicity.
	I fully accept the need for the events in Afghanistan and elsewhere to be reported by the media, but it is of a wholly different order to give publicity directly to the terrorists and to have Osama bin Laden broadcasting to the whole of the Arab world. We are entitled to ask, in the words of the President of the United States, whether the state of Qatar is with us or against us on this particular issue.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) claimed that he was no military expert, and by his comments this evening he proved his entitlement to that description. By seeking somehow to link these awful and perilous matters to the future creation of some absurd, bizarre, galaxy spanning, nuclear missile defence scheme, the twisted thoughts of some Dr. Strangelove, he did the House a grave disservice. If there is to be a child of this conflict, let it not be some further extension of militarisation, but rather the new world order, the recognition of interdependence and community that has been spoken about so powerfully and so much.

George Osborne: I think that ballistic missile defence has more to do with the events of 11 September than the scout movement does.

Stephen Pound: I am unused to right hon. and hon. Members sneering at and criticising the scout and guide movement of this country. The fact that there are those who do so is a fact to be deplored.
	I shall return to the rather more impressive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She spoke of a just war. I am at one, odd though the picture might seem, with her, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine because this clearly is a just war. The fact that it is a war that aims at justice, does not mean that there is anything less than a determination in this nation to pursue it. The fact that we have no appetite for war does not mean that we will not pursue it, and the absence of hunger does not mean that we do not have a stomach for it.
	When the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) referred to the conversations in the drawing rooms of his constituency, I thought of those in my constituency, where sadly we do not have drawing rooms, with whom I have discussed these issues. This morning I spoke to a group of Muslim constituents whom I am proud and honoured to represent. They are part of the multiracial, multicultural and multi-faith community which is in so many ways the glory and strength of this nation. They told me that their fears were as mine. They said that they do not see any commonality of interest between their Muslim faith and what they have heard on the airwaves, and which has been mentioned already today. They do not see a war against the west. They desire to live in peace in a decent and civil society.
	I spoke to the pupils of Viking primary school in my constituency where 50 per cent. of those attending are of the Muslim faith. Those Muslim children told me that they saw the enemy clearly and that it is terrorism, not Islam or some foreign demon. If a primary school child can see that so clearly, is it not depressing that there are still those voices around us, and occasionally within the House, who seek to demonise a peaceful religion and somehow subvert it to their own agenda?
	At my surgery this morning I spoke to a 30-year-old man from Afghanistan. He has been in this country for three years and his application for asylum is supported by a testimony from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. His physical torture was so horrific and barbaric that I would not bring the details of it to the Floor of the House. He told me that he wept for his nation, the nation that he loved. He also wept tears of gratitude that those of us in the west are finally realising that we are our brother's keeper, that we have to act and that we cannot allow this barbarity and assault on civilisation to continue unchallenged. That greatest challenge was supported by that young man from Afghanistan, whose family still live in that country.
	Like many hon. Members I have had letters from constituents saying that we should do nothing. They say that we should stand back and allow the internal contradictions of the Taliban regime to somehow collapse the system in on itself, let the lonely watchtowers of the Khyber crumble to dust or, as we have heard today, let an official of the court, accompanied by a tipstaff, prowl the echoing alleys of Kandahar and Kabul and take Mr. bin Laden into the care of the court and haul him before some British system of justice. That is a good idea, but is it practicable?
	I have had letters from constituents equally practically asking what is to happen to the many Mrs. bin Ladens and their numerous progeny. At the end of the day, however, the one question that I would ask them is, "If not this action, what action should be taken?"
	In the 21st century, at the dawning of what must be a century of hope in which we can finally show that there is a better way of living, can we really justify inaction and dream that somehow the world will become a better place without our doing anything?
	There will be sacrifices. There must be. We are already suffering. Our service men and women may already have suffered far more than we in the House can imagine. We owe a duty, however, not only to our people and those of the coalition but to humanity, to find a better way of living.
	On 11 September we saw the ghost of the past, which still has the power to haunt us. We saw the way that things should not be done. Now we have the opportunity to show how they might be done. The unanimity that I have heard expressed by almost everyone in the House will send a message of such strength and power beyond the walls of this Chamber that there will be no doubt anywhere in the world of the determination of this nation, this coalition and ultimately, I hope, this planet to live together in peace. That is the future. Bin Laden and his murderous crew are the past. The sooner that they are consigned to that past the better.

Richard Younger-Ross: I join the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in adding my thanks and praise to those service men and women who are serving us in Afghanistan to bring the terrorists to justice. I also add my thanks to those who serve us at home in the intelligence service. We have not heard much about them this evening, but they are working day and night to thwart terrorist attacks throughout the world. We may never hear about their sacrifice but I am sure that we all thank and praise them.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the Gulf war. Several commented that we should not have stopped when we did, but carried on and put an end to Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. I agree, but that is history. We did not do so. To say that we did not do it then, so we should not do it now does not follow. It is dangerous for people to try to make up for the mistakes of the past by making a mistake today. That is not the way to go.
	I ask those who do not recall or know much about military history to remember some of the basics of warfare. One has to keep one's eye on the target. Those who are distracted and leave the field in hot pursuit of some small detachment or who go off to fight their own small battles, return to the battlefield to find that they have lost not only the battle but the war.
	Much work has been done by President Bush and by our Prime Minister in particular to bring about a coalition of many countries throughout the world. Many people are trying to undermine that coalition. Many are working through the media in the middle east. Many are trying to do so through riots in Pakistan. There are Palestinians fighting in the occupied territories. In the coming days and weeks, we will hear about more riots and about attacks on embassies—possibly those of the United States or our own. All those people want to destabilise the coalition, but in doing so they would be giving victory to the enemy.
	Iraq would love the alliance to attack it. I am fairly certain that there will be activity at the edge of the southern and the northern no-fly zones to provoke alliance forces to drop bombs and missiles to destroy targets. I would not be surprised if missiles were placed close to civilian targets. The Iraqis have done it in the past; they did it in the Gulf war. They claimed when the missile was attacked that civilians had died there. They want to undermine the coalition in seeking a victory in a struggle that they lost many years ago.
	I urge hon. Members who wish to appear to be bold and upstanding—to be bigger and more macho than anyone else—that they are like the elephant walking towards the elephant trap. Those who enter the elephant trap are bound to give Osama bin Laden victory, and that we must resist.

John McDonnell: I must explain my constituency interest. The constituents of many west London Members will be starting their shifts at Heathrow tonight. With Heathrow a target, there is concern that we tackle terrorism in the long term to make all our communities safe.
	I was interested by the comment of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the broad agreement in the House about concerns and approaches, the sadness, and the general welcome for the cautious approach that has been taken. He also said that continuous reference was made to a just war, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) also mentioned. If we are to tackle terrorism in the long term, it is not ourselves whom we need to convince that this is a just war but the young men and women in north Africa, Pakistan, Iraq, the middle east and Palestine.
	Every action that we take in the coming weeks needs to be guided by the principles of a just war. Our concept of a just war goes back to Augustine, Aquinas, Vittoria, Grotius and others and formed the basis of the charter of the United Nations. They are also the principles laid out in the Koran. The first principle is that there has to be just cause. Seven thousand dead is a just cause for pursuing and ensuring that we bring to justice the people who perpetrated that atrocity. However, many in the countries that I have mentioned do not believe that the deaths justify the invasion or bombardment of a whole country.
	The second principle of just war is right intention. The motive has to be the pursuit of a just cause. We cannot bring in other motivations at this stage if we want to describe the present conflict as a just war. So, for example, we cannot broaden it to a turkey shoot at the Taliban because we would undermine the support for a just war in the very countries that could create the next generation of terrorist suicide bombers. We cannot broaden it to a battle against Iraq. I was worried by the reference made by the Secretary of State for Defence to Afghanistan as a priority target, which implied that other targets might be pursued. If we pursue Iraq at this stage, we will destabilise the whole region and create the next generation of suicide bombers who will come to Heathrow and elsewhere.
	The third principle is that there must be proper authority. The United Nations resolution gives us some authority, but we should go the extra mile. This is not some pacifist approach. I am not a pacifist, but we have to convince the whole Arab world at every level that we have just cause. The international court has been stalled by the United States of America. Perhaps we should suggest a special United Nations commission to prepare the indictment to start legal action under international law against the perpetrators. In that way, we would convince everyone that we were pursuing the terrorists according to the process of law.
	The next principle is last resort. One does not go to war unless one has pursued every alternative mechanism. I do not believe that ultimatums are diplomacy. The shooting war has now started. The tactically correct approach in the coming weeks may be to offer an interval in which we could go the extra mile to demonstrate that the Taliban have another opportunity to meet the demands that we have put to them. If nothing else, that would consolidate the support that we already have.
	The final principle of just war is proportionality. That is not just about a body count or the numbers dead on a quid-pro-quo, eye-for-an-eye basis. In proportionality, under the just law concepts, there is complete immunity for non-combatants. One cannot have just cause to react to the massacre of innocents with a further massacre of the innocent.
	Of course we need to consider whether the mechanisms that we are using at the moment will ensure the immunity of non-combatants. However, we must also recognise that the concept of proportionality applies to the life that we shall bestow on the refugees and to the potential for destabilising a whole region—not just during limited periods of military activity but in the long term—and that regional instability will eventually destabilise whole sections of the world.
	Those who have argued that this is a just war have not convinced many throughout the world, and if we do not convince them, we shall suffer the whirlwind in the long term, in our own constituencies, in our own society, when the next generation of terrorists emerges. I believe that the long-term interests of this battle against terrorism are best served by bringing the shooting war to an end as quickly as possible.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Gisela Stuart: rose—

John McDonnell: I give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Alex Salmond: There is a final criterion of a just war—jus ad bellum—which is that there must be a good chance of success. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

John McDonnell: I was just coming to that conclusion. I believe that unless we reinforce our mandate, unless we demonstrate proportionality to the whole world, unless we can demonstrate just cause, right intention, proper authority and proportionality, we shall fail, perhaps not in the short term, but in the long term, and the long-term consequences will be felt in my constituency.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to catch your eye during this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a thoughtful speech. The House should be focusing on the concept of proportionality. The events of 11 September were probably the worst terrorist atrocity against a civilised nation that we have ever known and we are in uncharted waters, but we certainly do not want to do anything that would destabilise the region.
	In my question to the Prime Minister, I praised him for his action, combined with that of President Bush, in building the broad-based coalition, especially among the front-line Islamic states. It is very important that we keep all those states on board.
	One thinks with admiration of the bravery of General Musharraf of Pakistan. I have visited Pakistan and travelled right up to the front line, and I know the considerable difficulties that the Pakistanis face. The Pakistanis and Iranians already have 3.5 million refugees between them, and they are likely to face many more. We should continue with every possible aspect of the humanitarian effort and with every other effort that we can to help states such as Pakistan. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is enormous. Its people are among the poorest in the world. I hope that, at the very least, one outcome of the conflict will be that we not only keep it on board but eventually bring a better quality of life to the people of that very poor country.
	I praised the United States, which has shown tremendous restraint. The building of the broad-based coalition is most important. We should have specific, achievable objectives for this military action. We should aim to use democratic means backed up by military action, by which I mean that we should aim to bring Osama bin Laden and his colleagues to an international court for trial. That must be the ultimate aim of democratic states. We should not be aiming simply to kill these people by undemocratic means. Although such deaths might be an unintended consequence of the military action that we are taking, our ultimate aim should be to bring those people to trial in an international court and a democratic country. I am sure that many other people in Afghanistan—leaders of the Taliban regime—will be declared international criminals and should be brought to trial.
	I have some first-hand experience of the brutishness of the Afghani regime as some of the hijackers who brought an aeroplane to the United Kingdom last year were put in a camp in my constituency. I spoke to them through an interpreter, and they described the very brutal regime under which they had been living. It might be useful for the House to understand what that regime has done. The Taliban have burnt all the books in the libraries and destroyed all the schools. They do not allow any of their people to go to school. They do not allow Afghani women to set foot outside the house unless they are fully covered and accompanied by their husband. Women are certainly never allowed into someone else's house. The poor people of Afghanistan are living under that type of regime.
	We therefore have to be careful about our military and other objectives in Afghanistan. If we leave a vacuum in the area, a much worse situation could well succeed the current one. We have to be clear in the objectives that we set ourselves.
	We must also maintain the broad-based coalition that has been built. I have just returned from a trip to China, which I shall register as an interest. It was interesting to talk to some of the top communist officials. Although they were very supportive of the broad-based coalition to act against terrorism, they made it clear that they would not support the coalition if large numbers of innocent civilians were caught up in the action. Although it will be a difficult balancing act to keep on board countries such as China and Pakistan, it is essential that we do so. We will be in a much more difficult position if the coalition collapses.
	We also have to be very careful to keep on board the front-line states, particularly the Islamic ones. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, if we embark on military action that is seen to be disproportionate and start to lose coalition members—especially the Arab states—we could find not only that the region has been destabilised, but that many more bin Ladens have arisen as a consequence of our action. That would clearly be a most unfortunate consequence.
	We must be careful not only about that but about extending the action to other countries, such as Iraq and South Yemen to name but two possibilities. If we become embroiled in a larger front—any military strategist would say that one should not become involved in a too-large front—we will get into difficulties. Although we must pursue terrorism to the nth degree, we must also be careful about how we do it.
	I pay great tribute to our armed forces, as many hon. Members have. I participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and spent time with the RAF. Hon. Members saw how, even before this military action, it was already overstretched. As a consequence of this action, our armed forces are likely to be even more overstretched. Now, armed forces members will have to spend even more time away from their families. Their families will not only be very concerned about them, but have to endure the absence from the household of their breadwinner. I was therefore pleased to hear the assurances of the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary that the armed forces will be given whatever resources they need.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned humanitarian aid. I think that it is critical that we should continue every possible effort to get humanitarian aid into Afghanistan. Although it will be difficult to deliver aid, surely it will not be impossible to do so once our armed forces are in place. It will not be impossible to hire Afghani drivers to take aid from Pakistan to Afghanistan. We do not want to cause those very poor people more suffering than is strictly necessary by the military action. I am sure that it will be possible, using the available military resources of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, to get resources into Afghanistan.
	I also urge the Secretary of State for International Development to say something about what she can do in terms of resources for the huge number of displaced people. I have seen them in the camps and they live in appalling conditions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Austin. 10.55 pm

John Austin: Like most hon. Members, I heaved a sigh of relief that there was not an immediate and ill-thought-out response from the United States after the appalling atrocity of 11 September. It is comforting that there has been such restraint and I join in the tribute that has been paid to our Prime Minister's contribution to putting together the international coalition. It was important to get resolutions 1368 and 1373 crafted and I welcome the assurance given this evening that, under article 51, the United Nations Security Council has been informed of our actions. I hope that it will continue to be so at every step of this engagement and that the UN will be brought much more into play in this issue.
	I also welcome the clear statements by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that this is not in any sense a war against Islam. As the Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat says:
	"Terrorism doesn't have a race, religion or nationality . . . The perpetrators must be brought to justice, but also be treated as a tiny minority. Everyone understands the US is entitled to take action. It is time for resolve but also wisdom. This should not be turned into a clash of civilisations."
	Our own Muslim communities here in Britain were among the first and the most outspoken in their condemnation of the atrocities of 11 September and I welcome the Prime Minister's meeting with the Muslim Council of Britain and others.
	We need to keep all the partners in the coalition together, but we need also to keep our own Muslim communities informed and on board. The Greenwich Islamic Centre and Woolwich mosque in my constituency were among the first to express their condemnation of this appalling atrocity. This is not a war against Islam, but we in this country need to wage a war against Islamophobia.
	In that respect, the outburst from Baroness Thatcher, which echoed the racist language of Mr. Berlusconi and the similar intemperate Islamophobic utterances and anti-Arab racism in The Daily Telegraph, did great damage to good race and community relations here and damaged the ability to keep the coalition together.
	Although my Muslim constituents support action to combat terrorism, they recognise only too well that the support from Islamic countries and in the Arab world in particular could rapidly decline in the wake of pressure from and unrest in their own communities. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) referred to the difficulties for the Government of Pakistan, but countries such as Jordan, which have said that they support the international efforts to combat terrorism, stress the necessity for restraint in respect of inflicting losses on the innocent civilians of Afghanistan.
	Lebanon has stressed its concern, saying that the UN must play more of a role, and Ghazi Afridi, the Lebanese information Minister, hopes that
	"these strikes remain targeted and limited . . . otherwise they will spark feelings of anger and grief which will be difficult to control . . . by countries whose stability cannot be said to withstand every shock."
	Syria has supported the strikes, but says that their success depends on getting Israeli leaders to "respect the international law" with regard to Palestine.
	Muslims in my constituency share the anger of their brothers and sisters about the international community's failure to resolve the conflict in the middle east and the failure to make progress in Kashmir. They also express concern about the situation in Iraq. It may be that they see thousands of children dying in Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) may place all the blame on sanctions and I know that our Foreign Secretary would say that the blame rests fairly and squarely with Saddam Hussein. I happen to believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but the perception in the Arab world is that children in Iraq are dying because of sanctions. We must be aware of that perception.
	I want to use the "P" word—Palestine. Of course the Prime Minister was right when he said that Osama bin Laden has no interest in resolving the middle east conflict. It is in his interest to prolong and intensify that conflict, but its continuation, the illegal occupation of Palestine and the failure to make progress in the peace process provide a fertile recruiting ground for Osama bin Laden and threaten continued support for the coalition. That is why two things are essential to the solidarity of the coalition against terrorism.
	First, we must ensure that any military response is measured, targeted and proportionate. The deaths of innocent civilians in Afghanistan as a result of military intervention would lead to the protests in Peshawar being repeated in cities and towns throughout the Muslim world and could destabilise the Governments who, at the moment, support the international coalition. We also need to build on diplomacy and ensure that development aid gets through. I fully support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who said that we need to think now about what will happen afterwards to rebuild Afghanistan. I hope that consideration of a UN protectorate is on the Government's agenda.
	Secondly, we need to deal with the issue of Palestine. It cannot be left to negotiation in which Israel effectively has a veto over any process. Under Sharon, the most extreme, fanatical and fundamentalist groups have returned to the centre stage of Israeli politics. This is the man who was responsible for the massacres in Sabra and Chatila. We ought to have an international criminal court. That is where Osama bin Laden should be tried; it is where Saddam Hussein should be tried, and it is where Ariel Sharon should be tried.
	We need to build a coalition to support the ratification of the International Criminal Court so that we can have a civilised response to the evils of terrorism throughout the world, whether it is the terrorism of Osama bin Laden or the state terrorism of Ariel Sharon, Tansu Ciller and Saddam Hussein.

Geraint Davies: There has been a great deal of discussion tonight and I am sure that we are all persuaded by it, but there are those in the communities that we represent who may not accept that this action is justice, not revenge. They may not accept that we have no choice but to act against terror or be attacked. There are those who think that these are issues between races or faiths. We must continue to talk to our communities about what has happened.
	We all know that 7,000 people of different races and religions were needlessly killed. We all know that if different means of destruction had been available to the perpetrators, that number could have been 70,000 or 700,000. It is important that we remind people that it was nearly a month before action was taken, because there are those who think that it was almost immediate, whereas we know that a coalition has been built on a humanitarian strategy and the need to find political solutions, as well a commitment to achieve justice on the basis of evidence.
	Overwhelming evidence against bin Laden has been emerging. Some of that has been placed in the public domain, but there are those who say that they have not seen all the evidence and do not accept the argument that someone might be shot if all the evidence were made public. We have now heard from bin Laden himself that, in his view, the events in New York were God's actions and therefore good, but still there are those who are uncomfortable with the proportionality and nature of the response. They argue that it is against Islam, even though Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia and at home have said that the terrorist actions defamed Islam and Muslims' reputation in the world. The Muslim Council of Britain said that Muslims must be in the vanguard of the movement to achieve justice following those crimes against humanity.
	We know that bin Laden thinks that all Jews and Americans, whether civilian or military, are legitimate targets. We ought to remind any hotheads in our local communities of that fact. We should remind them also that in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait, we acted to defend Muslim communities, and we will do the same in Afghanistan.
	Years of drought, war and misrule in that country have left people facing a humanitarian disaster of apocalyptic proportions as the winter approaches. We have been told by many speakers that, even before the events of 11 September, there were 4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and that 7 million Afghan people were dependent on aid, in part because so many women are uneducated and unable to find work for themselves. I am glad that Britain is giving an extra £55 million in aid, and that George Bush last week announced $320 million in aid. It is important that the UN should now get a grip and provide refugee camps with the access, funding and administration that will enable people to escape the horrors of war.
	Our commitment is to root out bin Laden and his terrorist network, and to avert a humanitarian disaster. However, we must also give a commitment that we will play our part in providing a lasting peace in Afghanistan and in creating an opportunity for renewal there. We must not make the mistakes that the Soviet forces made when they withdrew 10 years ago and left behind civil war and carnage in a country awash with small arms. After the Soviet forces had gone, fundamentalism—initially in the guise of the Northern Alliance—was on the rise. The Northern Alliance now appears to want our support, but it really only wants our arms and air power so that it can resume committing the war atrocities that it used to commit.
	We should build a lasting peace in Afghanistan, in which all ethnic and religious groups are represented. We should also, in the aftermath of our action, get involved in the country's economic renewal. The international community should give its support to schools, hospitals and economic renewal.
	Last time, we simply left Afghanistan without rebuilding strong and neighbourly relationships with Iran and Pakistan, which had to pick up the pieces and the refugees. If we do the same this time, the peace will not be lasting, for, in time, another bin Laden will emerge.
	It is important that change come from within, so that lasting reconciliation can be secured, in Afghanistan and in the middle east in general. In that way, we would be able to demand that an independent Palestine be established alongside Israel.
	Our immediate priority is to overcome bin Laden and to avert a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, but our lasting commitment in a shrinking world is to admit our vulnerabilities while accepting our responsibilities. In that way, we can hope to push forward peace, hope and justice instead of war, fear and terror.
	Finally, it is important that we, in the community of communities that is Britain, should strengthen our resolve to work together. We must condemn those who divide us and stoke up hatred on the back of catastrophe. Prejudice cannot be tolerated, regardless of the community from which it comes. This is a testing time for people in all communities. We must lead by example, at home and abroad, and in so doing celebrate the fact that there is hope for the future of Britain and the world, and for all people and children everywhere.

Frank Roy: On 11 September, nearly 7,000 people from more than 60 countries had their lives snuffed out by acolytes of terror who showed no regard for the main religious ethos, which recognises the sanctity of life.
	On that fateful day, only four short weeks ago, 10,000 children lost a mother or a father—the light that would have guided them through childhood to adulthood. All parents will recognise the sheer horror faced by those children over the past four weeks, a horror that is compounded by bewilderment. Those children will have regarded their parents as heroes, and they will be asking why people should have committed such a gross act against them.
	On 11 September, life took a different twist, and not only for the victims in New York, Washington DC or Pennsylvania. It took a different twist for all hon. Members and for all our constituents.
	I consider myself to be streetwise, and images or even the reality of violence do not shock me easily. But who will forget watching the images of 11 September, as I did, in my living room, with my family? I felt shock, bewilderment, and repugnance towards the hijackers. I wondered what made people commit such atrocious crimes in the name of religion. Their actions had nothing to do with their religion.
	On 11 September, thousands of men and women, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, husbands and wives woke to up to another day in their lives. Little did they know that it was the last day of their lives, which would be cut so tragically short. As I watched the images and discussed them with my family over the next few days, I tried to imagine being in those buildings on that day, looking out of the window and seeing an aeroplane coming towards me at more than 500 mph. It is beyond belief. Let us try to imagine being on the hijacked airliners and knowing, as the passengers knew, what could happen. Disbelief, shock and incomprehension are the response. We cannot comprehend how those people felt.
	That is why yesterday's action must be supported and defended by all hon. Members. Operation Enduring Freedom will be a testing time for us all, especially the men and women of our armed services. Two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to visit a hillside on the Albanian- Macedonian border to witness at first hand the work of British troops in Operation Essential Harvest. The area was awash with arms that were being fed to terrorists. Albanian villagers told me that some arms, including kalashnikov rifles, could be picked up for $25 in the local market.
	I spoke at length to an ethnic Albanian Muslim Member of Parliament, who told me about the extent of the good work that our armed services had done. He acknowledged their courage, devotion to duty and professionalism. I also spoke to some of the troops there. I asked a soldier what he thought that he should be doing now that they were approaching the end of their exercise. He replied, "I wish I could stay here to see a logical conclusion to our work."
	Operation Enduring Freedom must ensure that millions of Afghans see a logical conclusion to current events in their country. I hope that the free world has an endgame strategy, which sets up a United Nations protectorate, lets Afghans discuss matters among themselves and helps them to bring their country back to some semblance of order.
	The endgame strategy must also include the poppy fields of Afghanistan. They are the killing fields for many young people in our country and the western world. Seventy-five per cent. of the market comes from Afghanistan; 90 per cent. of the heroin in this country originates from Afghanistan. In the following days, weeks and months, we must ensure that the poppy fields stop sowing the seeds of misery, which transcend borders and affect our constituents.
	The men and women of our armed forces deserve our full support and prayers. Those men and women are striving to defeat terrorism and to take terrorism out of the lives of so many innocent people. We wish our forces well and send them the message that through their bravery over the next few months, peace and freedom in the name of religion, honesty and integrity must prevail.

Caroline Spelman: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for International Development for being present tonight. We were hoping to have the opportunity for a debate with her last week. Tonight's debate has shown how important it is for her to be in the Chamber, as her area of responsibility is a key aspect of the current crisis.
	I am keen to leave the right hon. Lady the lion's share of the remaining time, as she has indicated her willingness to answer questions on the subject of the humanitarian crisis and more generally, and it seems that this will be the last parliamentary occasion that we shall have for a week to put questions through her to the Government. Now that military action has started, it is a tense and difficult time and it is good that we have the opportunity to raise such questions.
	I am only sorry that the debate is taking place so late at night and that the gentlemen and ladies of the press have gone. I often feel that when we have debates in which there is a strong consensual tone—when, together, we are feeling our way towards the right response—that is the time when Parliament is at its best, yet I fear that we are talking among ourselves this evening.
	For the past four weeks we have tried as an Opposition to be unstinting in our bipartisanship, and have supported the allied effort to track the perpetrators of the attacks in America. My contribution tonight will be in the same constructive spirit, infused with a natural sense of compassion for the victims of starvation and war in Afghanistan, the victims of the bombs in America, and the families of the service men and women who are putting their lives on the line for us.
	I place on the record a tribute to our American allies who, through their restraint, have given the world time to think and to consider the best way to tackle terrorism while limiting the damage to innocent people. We have had time to realise that there are no quick fixes and that we must be in for the long haul. We have seen other creative ways of hitting terrorists where it hurts—through their financial supply.
	During this thinking time, we keep asking why—why would intelligent, educated men who have lived among us for several years want to fly aeroplanes into buildings at the cost of their own lives and the lives of many others? That bears all the hallmarks of cult behaviour. Bin Laden as a cult figure can be seen in his true context. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) described that cult as a narrow, aggressive sect that does not represent Islam. Bin Laden would like a holy war, but we have no war with Islam or the Afghan people, only with terrorists like him who claim innocent lives.
	Within hours of the twin towers being felled, people understood that one of the underlying causes was that terrorists had been allowed to exploit others' abject poverty and turn it into hatred against the west. International development has now risen up the agenda because of the scope that it offers to prevent that from happening again, and we must keep it there until poorer nations can see for themselves that we are trying to help. That is not to say that someone who is poor is more likely to become a terrorist; of course that is not true. However, if someone is poor, he is vulnerable. That is why we must help.
	The tragic events in America have made strange bedfellows of the rest of the world, with former adversaries now joined in alliance against the scourge of terrorism. The lion has, indeed, lain down with the lamb—America with Russia and China, and now Pakistan and India. They are new allies with a common purpose.
	Britain is in a unique position to help; our history confers such a responsibility on us. We enjoy a special relationship with America, a partnership with Europe and strong ties with the Commonwealth. We must use that influence, above all, with a sense of humanity and responsibility.
	The refugee crisis is here and now. Our war effort will not be helped unless we get the care and treatment for the refugees right. We welcome the fact that the Government will spend an additional £25 million on the crisis, but announcing the money is not the same as putting clean food and water in the hands of a starving refugee. Aid agencies have recommended that the internationally agreed standards of the Sphere project should be used to ensure that refugee camps have enough food, water, shelter and sanitation, so I should like to ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she can reassure the House that those international standards will be enforced.
	I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware of the reports on the conditions in the refugee camps in Pakistan—"makeshift" was the word used earlier. We should not blame Pakistan for that, for without adequate international support it cannot be expected to bear the burden of 2 million refugees—a figure that rises by thousands every day.
	Our view is that no country should have to bear a disproportionate burden; it is a shared responsibility. We have the resources and capability to ensure that the camps, and the new camps, are brought up to acceptable international standards. The sight of men, women and children struggling in the squalor of refugee camps is as bad as that of the innocent victims of military action.
	Pakistan will not feel encouraged to open its borders unless the international community can ensure that it will not be swamped by refugees. The United Nations estimated that 30,000 refugees were massing on the border with Pakistan, but it did so on 27 September and I wonder whether the Secretary of State has more up-to-date figures. We need to know the likely scale of the problem.
	We should not overlook the fact that Iran has more refugees than Pakistan. Fewer of them are in refugee camps; most have been diffused into the population, but the possibility of unrest in Iran could be as great as that in Pakistan. Given that Iran is suspicious of any military action, what are the Government doing to ensure that the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan does not become an intolerable burden on the Government of Iran?
	Now that military action has begun, we must urgently consider how humanitarian and military action can take place simultaneously. That must happen because only a four- week window is left before the onset of the Afghan winter.
	Given the Taliban's legacy of disrupting essential humanitarian aid and stealing the World Food Programme's food stocks and their manifest lack of care for their own people, delivering aid into Afghanistan will now be very difficult. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to the House that the aid will not fall into the wrong hands and fuel the Taliban war effort?
	It has been announced that 37,000 food rations were dropped yesterday, and the Prime Minister said in his statement that 5,000 tonnes of wheat had been delivered, but does the right hon. Lady accept that that amount would have to be substantially increased to avert a disaster? The UN estimates that 7.5 million Afghans depend on food aid and that 1.6 million face starvation. The crisis is, therefore, several times the size of that which we abhorred in Kosovo.
	The awful truth is that, before 11 September, Afghanistan already had the worst refugee crisis in the world, with 4 million refugees in the region and more than 1 million internally displaced. However, I got the impression from the statements this afternoon that we are in danger of giving up on the difficulty of getting aid into the interior. We must not give up on the refugees there. A United Nations spokesman said tellingly:
	"Their grip on survival is definitely slipping."
	We need to get the numbers into perspective: 20 million people are still left in Afghanistan.
	I talked to the Christian Aid workers recently returned from Afghanistan and I was shocked to learn that following three years of drought, the water table is 57 m below ground. I had to check that figure—I thought that they meant 57 ft. It means that women and children are unable to haul up water and they lack the equipment to pump it up.
	The aid agencies make a very important point, and it is important to share it with the House. They strongly desire to keep people in their villages where they have shelter and where they can be in place to plant next year's crop. Their all fleeing to refugees camps will only exacerbate the problem that we have at present.
	What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that people are enabled to stay in their villages? Does she accept that the air drops may miss the refugees as they flee from their established communities and that road convoys stand a better chance of intercepting the refugees before they leave home?
	Nobody is ever a willing refugee. Refugees have fled famine and oppression and most would like to return home. We have a duty to ensure that they are able to return. As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said, we have to create that hope.
	As an Opposition, we have said several times that we must be prepared to rebuild Afghanistan. That is the best way we have of demonstrating that the west has no war with ordinary Afghan people. We have all seen the pictures of Kabul even before the bombing started. It had been reduced virtually to rubble by 20 years of war, and the present military action is bound to cause more damage, so reconstructing the infrastructure of the country will be vital to putting it back on its feet.
	We must keep these long-term results of the action firmly in our sights. Weak, unstable countries are the tinderbox of conflict and have proved a seedbed for terrorism. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the people of Afghanistan and the millions of refugees in Pakistan, Iran and the other neighbouring countries can look forward to a safe return? A country with a future presents less of a threat to world security.
	This needs to be a shared responsibility. We have chosen to stand shoulder to shoulder with America to provide global leadership in the fight against international terrorism. Britain is at the heart of building an international coalition that bridges ideological divides. It can be used to set the example that restoring a homeland should be an integral part of solving a refugee crisis.
	To win the war on terrorism we must not only re-establish the rule of international law but tackle the humanitarian consequences and do that well. By providing aid, decent camps and long-term reconstruction, we will help to maintain long-term peace. The new humanitarian coalition is our best chance of bringing that about and, then, from this awful tragedy, we can wrest some good. 11.29 pm

Clare Short: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on taking up her post. I hope that it will not embarrass her if I say that the Bishop of Birmingham, of whom I am enormously fond—he recently announced his retirement and has done much good service in our city—rang me to say what a fine woman she is. I look forward to working with her. As she says, not only is the task of seeking to make life better for the poor of the world one of the most honourable that one can have in politics, but we shall not have a safe world order in the future unless we make a bigger effort to deal with the poverty, suffering and injustice that exist in our modern world. I look forward very much to working with the hon. Lady to that end.
	We have had an unusually thoughtful and high-quality debate. It is normal in times of crisis for the House to pull together, but almost all the contributions have been deeper than that; there has been a shared analysis and a deep consensus. Hon. Members agreed that military action was necessary to deal with the evil perpetrated in the United States and to take apart the terrorist network that is capable of inflicting the same kind of evil again in another part of the world. There was an absolute consensus across all the parties that we must give as big a commitment to humanitarian action, both in an emergency and to rebuild the countries that are suffering. There is a real commitment to global social justice and to dealing with some of the injustices, particularly in that region of the world, which do not excuse the terrorists' actions but feed the bitterness that misleads some young people to engage in that action.
	I have been a Member of the House for 18 years and I have never seen such a deep consensus, built on an analysis rather than a coming together at a time of crisis. We all want to pay a warm tribute to our armed forces. We send them and their families our support, concern and thoughts at this difficult time.
	It is important to remember that the Afghan people were facing a crisis before 11 September. They have suffered 20 years of war and three years of terrible drought, which have contributed to a huge loss of life and tremendous human suffering. Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries, with some of the world's highest child and maternal mortality rates. Disability is common—a consequence of the large number of landmines that litter the country after so many years of war.
	Health and education services have virtually disappeared and women and girls have suffered grievously from the limitations of movement, health care, education and employment imposed by the Taliban. Clearly, that situation was deeply serious before 11 September. As has been said, there were large numbers of refugees in neighbouring countries even before the current crisis. Both Iran and Pakistan have been hosting large numbers of refugees, with insufficient international support, for a long time.

Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked a very important question: are we giving aid to Iran to help cope with the refugee problem in eastern Iran?

Clare Short: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not just giving aid to Iran now; we have been doing so for many years. Many other countries have not been providing support to Iran and Pakistan for the large numbers of refugees that they have been hosting. The UK has been providing aid for many years and we are now increasing that aid to help the countries concerned to welcome refugees if they reach their borders and to ensure that they do not have to carry the burden of caring for those refugees.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As I said in my speech, as Pakistan is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, will the Secretary of State say something about any possible relief of that debt, which would help Pakistan's poor considerably?

Clare Short: Indeed; I planned to come on to that. With its GDP per head and its level of debt, Pakistan is suffering as much as many of the highly indebted poor countries, but it does not qualify, for technical reasons that I shall not take the time of the House to explain. We need to persuade the international community to provide debt relief to Pakistan. Ironically, the economic reform package of Pakistan's military Government is better than that of any of the preceding so-called "democratic" Governments. We must help Pakistan now, but we must help the Pakistani Government sustain their reform so that they can build a better country for their people in the future, and debt relief must be part of that package.
	Even before 11 September, the Taliban regime were making the humanitarian effort very difficult. They were harassing non-governmental organisations and making it difficult for United Nations agencies to operate. Before that date, we had made additional resources available because the drought was worsening and the level of need was so great. The difficulty was not in finding resources from the UK but in deploying them inside Afghanistan, because it was difficult to find agencies that could take help through to the people in need.
	All that made the provision of humanitarian aid very difficult, even before 11 September. After 11 September when all international workers were withdrawn from Afghanistan and the World Food Programme convoys ceased, matters became very serious indeed. I must confess to the House that I and some of the professionals in my Department who have worked in this field for many years were fearful that in addition to everything else there would be famine in Afghanistan.
	I am now heartened as I think that we can do much better. In the last week the World Food Programme restarted aid convoys into Afghanistan. As there are no UN workers in the country, commercial Afghan lorry drivers were used—the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) may have referred to this—so although it was impossible to give assurances of accountability, a judgment was made that it was better to get food to hungry people, even if some of it was diverted, than to send nothing at all.
	The operation involved sending food to warehouses that were known to have existed previously, hoping that the distribution mechanisms were still in place as the Taliban had issued an edict that Afghan workers working for international agencies could not use telephones to communicate with those agencies—on pain of death. Although we could have no certainty that the food would be distributed, convoys went in rather than letting people go hungry.
	The reports that came back after a week of that activity—before military action began—were most heartening. We reached the point at which 500 tonnes a day was reaching the warehouses and being distributed. Some of it might have been diverted but most of the food was getting to hungry people. We need to double that quantity for a six-week period, not just to feed people now, but to lay down stockpiles to carry them through the winter. That activity has been disrupted by military action, but I am hopeful that convoys will start again as soon as possible and that it will be practical to get the food that is needed into Afghanistan to ensure that the people there can get through the winter.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the UN issued an appeal for $600 million for six months to look after the refugees coming out of Afghanistan and to feed people remaining in that country. We now have that $600 million, but as the hon. Member for Meriden said, some countries make financial commitments that are not quickly deployed on the ground. The UK has a reputation for deploying its money quickly. In fact, almost the whole of our commitment has already been deployed. The resources are there, getting people into the camps. I agree that the existing camps are not adequate and we need to raise the standards as well as prepare for more people to come out of Afghanistan.
	When the UN issued the appeal, it estimated that in addition to the refugees who are already in Iran, Pakistan and other neighbouring countries, 1.5 million people would need to be provided for. So far the numbers leaving Afghanistan have been very small and we do not know why. We do not know whether people were being prevented from moving, whether only those with transport and the ability to carry food with them have been able to leave and the most vulnerable and the most needy have been moving out of the cities and returning to their own villages rather than making for the borders.
	We have to be prepared for both eventualities, which involve the same number of people. We have either to provide for them to arrive at the borders as refugees or get food to them in Afghanistan. We need sufficient flexibility to do whatever is required.
	The priority now is to get the convoys moving again as rapidly as possible. I have been liaising with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my Department will be communicating with the Ministry of Defence to make sure that we bring that about.

Hugh Bayley: Many hon. Members have made the point that co-ordinating the aid effort is a huge logistical task. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announce last week that the UN Secretary- General has appointed Lakhdar Brahimi as a co-ordinator. What precisely will his role be and how will the British operation dovetail into a wider plan to make sure that aid is provided as effectively as possible?

Clare Short: The United Kingdom has been working for a long time to strengthen UN systems. At moments like this we have to rely on UN systems. We had to do so in Kosovo, and this is a bigger country and a more difficult situation. We put many of our resources through UN systems and do a lot of work to strengthen its management and effectiveness.
	We already had a special representative to the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Vendrell, who was trying to deal with the political crisis in the region. He needs to be respected as a fine representative. Kofi Annan has now appointed Mr. Brahimi to co-ordinate and drive forward the humanitarian effort. He is a man of enormous standing and long experience. Clearly, there is a strong interface between the political and humanitarian, in that we need all the neighbouring countries to welcome refugees, to supply the help they need and to get convoys and supplies in. Mr. Brahimi will be working to bring about that sort of UN political and humanitarian co-ordination so that the international system works as well as it can.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked when the House would be given details of the emergency legislation that has been promised. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement to the House as soon as it returns. The details are being worked on now and full details will be provided to the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) spoke about the views of the British Muslim community and its natural concern about the crisis. He also spoke about its anger that Islam has been so misrepresented by Bin Laden. I found that in my constituency too. Good Muslims were angry that he should claim that their religion would justify such action and was not a religion of peace and justice. Like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend called on us to learn from the mistakes of the past. He said that we must stand by Pakistan and Afghanistan in the long term and not leave them with a crisis after the emergency is over. There is a strong commitment in all parts of the House and in what the Prime Minister said earlier, to stand by Pakistan and Afghanistan, not just through this crisis but in the future so that they can be rehabilitated and reconstructed and provide a better life for their people.
	Many hon. Members talked about the centrality and importance of the role of the United Nations. Let me make it clear that we have had unprecedented consensus at the UN. There was a strong and unanimous resolution from the Security Council deploring the crisis and a similar resolution from the General Assembly, and we had them quickly. Since then, there has been a second resolution from the Security Council making it compulsory for all members to strengthen their laws to deal with terrorism. There has been more unanimity and strength in the UN's response to this crisis than to any other I can remember.
	The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) wisely—

Alex Salmond: The right hon. Lady indicated earlier that she would seek to have published the UK's response under article 51 of the Security Council. Is she also aware that the American response talks about further action in respect of other organisations and states? Given the restraint of President Bush and Colin Powell until now, that the opinion of many Islamic countries is on a knife edge and that the view in the presidential palaces is perhaps different from that on the streets, I cannot understand the wisdom of that statement now. I should like to know whether the Government agree with that statement and whether a statement of that sort is in their letter to the Security Council.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman asked earlier whether the letter from the UK would be placed in the Library. I have it with me and I can assure the House that it will be placed in the Library and be available to all hon. Members. I agree with his point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, that we must not widen the objectives of the campaign. It must be a focused and just war with no civilian casualties. We must keep the global coalition together and go after those who perpetrated the monstrous acts in the United States of America. We must not look for all trails that need to be corrected over time. We must focus this campaign. That was the point made by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Esher and Walton, and we agree strongly.
	Many hon. Members stressed the need for the United Nations to be involved in building a new Afghanistan. The Government are sympathetic to that argument, but all hon. Members should be clear that the Afghan people are very proud and have an independent spirit. It is not for us to lay down the exact mechanism that will bring about a better governed and more inclusive Afghanistan.
	It is not an objective of the military campaign to bring down the Taliban Government as such; it is to bring to justice terrorists and prevent the sort of action that was brought about in the United States by the terrorist network. However, the Taliban Government and the al-Qaeda network are so intertwined that it is almost impossible to believe that one objective can be achieved without it bringing about the other. We are looking for a new government in Afghanistan, therefore, which needs to be inclusive of all its people and to be a much better government than the people of Afghanistan have seen for a long time. There is a strong possibility that the United Nations will be involved in that process, but we must respect the people of Afghanistan and their wishes.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that 7 million people who have been beaten and abused for 20 years and who are starving are unlikely to have the impetus, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, to rise up against the Taliban and to say that they want a better future? Is it not up to the west and the alliance to provide that impetus? How do we test an impetus? If that test is not met, will we have another 20 years to wait for another bin Laden?

Clare Short: I am afraid that my hon. Friend was not listening too closely. I do not think that anyone has talked of the people of Afghanistan rising up. There is evidence of Taliban authority and control beginning to crumble in parts of the country. That is the optimistic scenario—that it will crumble and a new regime can be put in place.
	I said that it was unlikely that the objectives of the military campaign could be achieved with the Taliban remaining in place, given that they have failed to respond to the international call to hand over those guilty of the terrorist actions in the United States. We are talking about a process to bring about a new inclusive government in Afghanistan and about ensuring that the international community does not impose a government that represents only some of the people—that there is an inclusive process, they are all consulted and all the different ethnic groups are included in the formation of a new government that ought in time to be renewed by democratic means.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) asked for an assurance about the policing allowed for London. I will ask a Home Office Minister to write to him about that matter. Importantly, although we are talking about military action tonight, he said that the campaign will have many different facets, including action against the money and drug dealing that feeds and strengthens the networks. The action against money laundering that he mentioned is crucial. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just returned from a meeting of the G8 in Washington that focused on worldwide action to strengthen action on money laundering—broadly, criminality and drugs, but also the activities of terrorists. That is an important part of the work.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, eloquently and rightly, that war is always an evil but that in this case it is necessary. That is the spirit of the House. We should never celebrate war. Sometimes, regrettably, it is necessary—as it is in this case—but it is a necessary evil and we should always try to minimise the number of people hurt in the process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) said that we need to be determined to strengthen global institutions in the face of this sort of crisis, as well as keeping our commitment to global social justice. He is right and, again, that was the mood of the whole House.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) called strongly for bombing Afghanistan with food to bring an end to its people's troubles, but she showed greatness of spirit when she accepted that military action was probably necessary too.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) very effectively made the case for this military action being self-defence under the United Nations charter. It is about not only bringing those who are guilty to justice—important though that is—but stopping what happened happening again, possibly in our country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) spoke of his generation's expectation of real global social justice for all people in the world. We all say amen to that. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said that we must be clear that we are taking action not in revenge but in our own interests and those of the people of Afghanistan. That is right, too. Our objective is to make our own country and the world safe from such terrorism in the future—to bring about a change in Afghanistan that will also offer a better future for its people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the need for a just war and perhaps revealed the kind of education that he had as a child, which I shared. We were thoroughly grounded in the principles of a just war. I heard a discussion on the radio one Sunday morning, in which the Islamic teaching on a just war was outlined. It absolutely parallels the principles that underpin Christian teaching. I am sure that all the principles—proportionality, there being no other way, and the requirement that the action can be successful—are fulfilled in this case. The campaign absolutely meets the principles of a just war and we have to ensure that people across the world understand that that is our approach and that it is our determination to carry this through to success.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised the question of debt in Pakistan, and I have responded to that. He also spoke eloquently of how asylum seekers coming to his constituency taught him how brutal the regime in Afghanistan was, and underlined the need not to widen the objectives of the campaign to the pursuit of terrorism everywhere, which could weaken our effectiveness.
	Many other hon. Members raised important points, and it is impossible for me to do justice to them all. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) said that we must not allow the stoking up of prejudice and enmity at home and abroad. Again, we have the determination across the House, with a few exceptions, to hold together our own multicultural community and reassure our Muslim communities that we stand for justice and echo the voice that we have all heard in our constituencies that Muslims find what happened in the United States of America abhorrent. This is not a battle with Islam but a battle against evil. Islam teaches that innocent civilians should never be killed in the course of warfare in the way that happened in the United States.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) talked about the need to destroy the poppy fields. Indeed. The poppies that are used to manufacture drugs that end up on our streets and cause mayhem, human suffering and criminality are grown because many people in Afghanistan have no alternative decent livelihood. They do not use the drugs, but they grow the poppies because they are the only crop that brings them a rate of return. We have to guarantee to the people of Afghanistan a better legitimate livelihood so that they can see a better future for their children. Then the drugs will cease to be grown and come on to our streets, and our communities will prosper and be rid of the monstrous evil and criminality that comes with drugs and drug addiction.
	I want to end by underlining once again our determination not just to provide aid to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran to deal with the immediate crises but to increase the food and humanitarian relief getting into Afghanistan to see people through the crisis. We are determined to stick by Pakistan and Afghanistan for the long term, as hon. Members have called on us to do throughout the debate. Clearly, the role of Pakistan is crucial. We need to help that country with its short-term needs and economic reform, and with the transition to democracy. We have been engaged in that work for some time.
	Hon. Members know that not very long ago there was a military coup in Pakistan. It was welcomed by almost all the people of Pakistan, and by our own communities living in the United Kingdom, because the two previous so-called democratic Governments had so misgoverned that country. There had been terrible corruption and blunder, absolute economic mismanagement and absolutely no social provision. The trends in maternal mortality and numbers of children in schools had gone into reverse.
	No one welcomes a military coup, but General—now President—Musharraf has made it clear that he wants his Government to be a transitional Government to genuine democracy, better economic governance and better social provision for his people. We are determined to stay with the Government of Pakistan and help them to secure that aim. Already local democratic elections have taken place throughout the country. We provided technical support to ensure that those elections were well run, and they have been well run. The House might be pleased to know that that military Government made it a requirement that a third of the local government councillors would be women, and there are now more women in power in Pakistan, democratically elected, under a military Government than Pakistan has ever seen.
	Pakistan has never previously completed any economic reform programme that it has agreed with the international community. Now, for the first time in its history, it has just completed an International Monetary Fund economic reform programme. Therefore we must help Pakistan in the short term, but we must stick with the reform effort in Pakistan.
	When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Pakistan, he made it clear that we are looking to provide budgetary support, when Pakistan's new poverty reduction and growth facility is negotiated with the IMF, to ensure that it can provide better healthcare and education for the poor of that country, and also that we are determined to do all that we can to help with the debt relief that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I have made it clear that some debt that was owed to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has now been taken on to the budget of my Department, will be written off.
	We must stick with Pakistan right through this crisis and into the future. The people of Pakistan deserve better government and we must ensure that the present Government is a transition to better government.

Ian Davidson: May I clarify the terms in which all these arrangements are being made with Pakistan? I welcome what is being said, but will there be an undertaking from the Pakistan Government that they will remove the terrorist camps in their own country, which have for a long time been directed into Kashmir and caused great death and destruction there?

Clare Short: The reform programme that we have with Pakistan is conditional on its driving forward the reforms that it has already agreed with the international community. We must help it in the short term, but occasionally when countries are in crisis, the international community comes in with short-term relief, which can sometimes divert a country from the reform effort, and then when everyone goes away its economic programme is in difficulty. That is what happened to Pakistan in the past, and we must ensure that it does not happen in future.
	The present Government of Pakistan face difficulties from all sorts of pressures within the country. We have to understand that and stand by them. The question of the long-standing conflict over Kashmir is delicate and enrages. It has caused war between India and Pakistan in the past. We should all be determined to make progress on Kashmir, and we must respect the delicacy and complexity of that conflict, especially at the present time.
	Before finishing, I want to discuss the need to help rebuild Afghanistan, and not just politically by putting in place an inclusive Government. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. We must have a long-term programme—a big engagement of the international community—to drive forward economic and social reform and enable the people of Afghanistan to look forward to a better future.
	When I briefly left the Chamber to have something to eat, I learned that there have been demonstrations tonight across Pakistan and across the Arab world. The determination and unity of the House are impressive, and we have to stand together. However, we should not underestimate the difficulty, or the need to stand for global social justice. We have to explain what we are trying to achieve and carry it through to the end—
	It being midnight, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
	That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Norris.]
	Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.